RIZWAN Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the first bail application on behalf of the accused-applicant Rizwan involved in case crime no.444 of 2009 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act pertaining to police station Ramgarh, district Firozabad. Heard Sri Viresh Misra, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Amit Misra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State on 24.5.2010 and have gone through the records and bail rejection order.

(2.) Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all the accused are closely related to one another. Babloo suspected that the deceased Amir had an evil eye on his unmarried sister Razia alias Rajjo. On 15.10.2009 at about 4:30 p.m., Babloo came to the house of the complainant and took away Amir with him on the pretext of having some work and told the complainant that Amir would be back within 15 - 20 minutes. When Amir did not return for quite sometime, the complainant along with his brother Asif reached Babloo's house and saw that in a room bolted from inside, accused Babloo, Rizwan, Suleman, Kafil Bhatti Wala and Shadab Mulla were hurling abuses on Amir. All the accused were armed with pistols and tamanchas and all of them fired at Amir. When the complainant and his brother raised alarm, all the accused went away brandishing their weapons. Amir died on spot. F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 6:45 p.m. It was further submitted that the deceased sustained five firearm wounds of entry and four firearm wounds of exit. A 9 m.m. pistol, made in U.S.A., was recovered from the possession of the applicant whereas, two empty cartridges of 9 m.m. were recovered from the place of occurrence. It was submitted that the version given in the F.I.R. was correct, but the investigating officer tried to sabotage the case and exonerated Kafil Bhatti Wala and Shadab Mulla and falsely implicated six persons, who were not named in the F.I.R. It was contended that the statement of complainant has been recorded by the trial court in which he has stuck to his first version given in the F.I.R.

(3.) Applicant is named in the F.I.R., which is prompt. The statement of the complainant, recorded before the trial court, is in consonance with the F.I.R. The prosecution version is supported by postmortem report.