Vinod vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Vinod with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 7241 of 2005 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302, I.P.C. P.S. Kampil, district Farrukhabad.

The prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Sunil Kumar on 8.2.2005 at about 8.00 a.m., in respect of the incident which had occurred on 8.2.2005 at about 6.30 a.m., the distance of the police station was about 8 km. The applicant and other co-accused persons are named in the F.I.R. It is alleged that the deceased Rajendra Singh was brining sugarcane to the mills in a tractor and the same was driven by him. The first informant was lagging behind the deceased, at about 6.30 a.m. on 8.2.2005, when the tractor of the deceased came near the field of one Shishupal, the applicant and other co-accused persons having unauthorized country made pistols came there and stopped the tractor. The first informant asked the deceased to run away but the applicant and other co-accused persons discharged the shots at the deceased consequently, the deceased died instantaneously.

According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased had received five gun shot wounds of entry, three gun shot wounds of exit and one abrasion.

Heard Sri J. N. Singh learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Tahir Husain Farooqui, learned Counsel for the complainant.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the presence of the first informant at the alleged place of occurrence was highly doubtful. Being the son of the deceased there was no reason for going alone lagging behind the deceased. No injury was caused on his person. The role of firing is assigned to six persons but the deceased has received only five gun shot wounds of entry and nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. There is no specific allegation against the applicant. The co-accused Ram Avtar and Ram Ratan alias Pappu have been released on bail by this Court on 27.3.2006 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9770 of 2005 and 9771 of 2005. Therefore, the applicant is also entitled for bail. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent.

In reply to the above contentions it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that in the present case the F.I.R. has been promptly lodged. The specific role of firing has been assigned to the applicant and five other co-accused persons. The deceased has received five gun shot wounds of entry and one abrasion. The alleged occurrence has taken place in the presence of the witness whose names have been mentioned in the F.I.R. and the first informant is also an eye-witness. On the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail even he is not entitled for bail on the ground of parity because after committing the alleged offence the applicant remained on absconding for one and half years and one co-accused Ramesh is still absconding. In case, he is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. The parity alone cannot be the sole ground to release the applicant on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence.

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 fact that the applicant remain on absconding for one and half years, after the alleged incident, his case is distinguishable with co-accused Ram Avtar and Ram Ratan alias Pappu therefore, and without accepting the parity of the co-accused Ram Avtar and Ram Ratan alias Pappu and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly, the application is rejected.