Surendra alias Lalu vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Surendra alias Lalu with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 541 of 2006 u/s 302, I.P.C., P.S. Navgaon district J. P. Nagar.

The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Jaswant Singh on 11.6.2006 at about 00.10 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 10.6.2006 at about 9.30 p.m., the distance of the police station was about 5 k.m. from the alleged place of occurrence. The applicant, co-accused Babu and co-accused Kalu Singh alias Lokendra are named in the F.I.R. It is alleged that on 10.6.2006 at about 9.30 p.m. gun shot injuries have been caused on the person of the deceased by the applicant and other co-accused by discharging the shots by country made pistol, after receiving the injuries, the deceased fell down, on his shrikes and sound of firing the first informant and other witnesses came at the place of occurrence, then the applicant and other co-accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence.

According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had received two gunshot wound of entry having its exit wound.

Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, senior advocate assisted by Sri P. C. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. and Sri V. P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the alleged occurrence has taken place in the dark hours of night at about 9.30 p.m. on 10.6.2006, at the time of the alleged incident the deceased was alone, first informant and other witnesses were in his company, they came on hearing the shrikes of the deceased and the sound of firing, which shows that they had not seen the alleged occurrence, even they had not seen as to who caused the injury on the person of the deceased. According to the post mortem examination report, both the injuries were having blackening and tattooing or charring, which show that the injuries were caused as alleged in the F.I.R. and it has not been specified as to whose shot hit the deceased but during investigation the manner of the occurrence has been changed by the first informant and other witnesses by alleging that the deceased was caught hold by the co-accused Babu and Kalu Singh alias Lokendra then the applicant caused two gun shot injuries. The changed version is highly improbable, which is not acceptable at all because the nature of the injuries shows that such injuries cannot be caused if the deceased is caught hold by the two persons. The F.I.R. of this case is ante-timed, it was not in existence at the time of preparation of the inquest report because in the inquest report overwriting has been done in the time of initiating the proceedings of the inquest and the time of closure, even in the inquest report, it has been mentioned that there was a gun shot wound of entry in front of chest whereas it was in the back of the chest but it is exit wound on front of the chest. The presence of the witnesses at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. The applicant is innocent. He has not committed the alleged offence. Therefore, he may be released on bail.

In reply of the above contention it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant that in the present case F.I.R. has been promptly lodged, the applicant is named in the F.I.R. during investigation, all the witnesses have stated that the applicant has caused two gun shot wounds of entry. The prosecution story is corroborated with the post mortem examination report because gun shot wounds of entry were found on the person of the deceased and it is no stage to determine the probabilities of the case. The applicant is the main accused. The trial is in progress. The statement of P.W. 1 has been recorded by the trial court and the examination-in-chief of P.W. II has also been recorded by the trial court. Therefore, the applicant cannot be released on bail.

Considering the facts, circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and considering the role of the applicant without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly the application is rejected.