Virendra Yadav @ Dablu vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Virendra Yadav @ Dablu with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 949 of 2006 under sections 302, 396 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Jeeyanpur District Azamgarh.

Heard Dr. S.K. Yadav, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

From the perusal of the record it appears that FIR of this case has been lodged by Veer Bahadur Rai on 16.10.2006 at 4.05 P.M. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 16.10.2006 at 3.00 P.M. The distance of the police station concerned was about five kilometres from the alleged place of occurrence. The applicant, coaccused Santosh Mishra and coaccused Sandeep Rai are named in FIR, one miscreants was unknown. According to the prosecution version on account of old enmity the applicant and other coaccused came on a motorcycle, the deceased and first informant was also on a motorcycle. Due to old enmity the deceased tried away to run from the place of occurrence but he was caught hold by the coaccused Santosh Mishra but he released from the clutches of coaccused Santosh Mishra, again he tried to run away then the applicant, coaccused Sandeep Rai and one unknown miscreant discharged the shots by their country made pistols. The deceased sustained gun shot injuries and died instantaneously. Due to above incident the panic was created even the movement of the people on the road was stopped. According to the postmortem examination report the deceased has sustained eight antemortem injuries in which injuries No. 1, 3, 5 and 7 were gun shot wounds of entry and rest of the injuries were gun shot wounds of exit. Learned Counsel for the applicant stated that the deceased was a criminal and the place of the incident has not been shown in the site plan. The prosecution story is not corroborated by the postmortem examination report.

The same is controverted by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that the prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. FIR has been promptly lodged. The deceased has been murdered in day light and there is no illegality in the site plan to belie the prosecution story. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with evidence.

Considering the fact, circumstnace of the case, considering the gravity of the offence and active role of the applicant causing the injury on the person of the deceased by fire arm 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 this application is rejected.