ASLAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. at considerable length and perused the record. The applicant Aslam is involved in case crime no.608 of 2008 under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 I.P.C., Police Station Gulaothi, District Bulandshahar.

(2.) IT is argued on behalf of the applicant regard the genuineness of the prosecution case that prosecution version is not reliable and applicant has been falsely involved in this case. It is further contended that F.I.R. was lodged after inordinate delay, and Moinuddin who had lodged F.I.R. does not appear to be an eye witness of the incident because he was an accused in one triple murder case and in the murder of the father of the co accused Hammad and it is unnatural that Hammad will spare him, had be been present there. It is also submitted that the investigation of the case is not fair as the investigating officer did not record the statement of Yusuf who is the owner of the shop where the incident is alleged to have occurred. That the applicant has been assigned the role of firing from country made pistol in the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but it is doubtful that there was any injury of 12 bore country made pistol on the person of the deceased. It is further submitted that the investigating officer has not shown the place in the site plan from where blood was taken and it is also unnatural that Moinuddin will have no blood stain on his cloth while taking deceased to the hospital and as such the prosecution case is doubtful and the applicant deserves bail.

(3.) CONSIDERED the respective submissions made by the parties. It is a daylight murder where five persons had participated in the incident. The F.I.R. was lodged soon after the incident. There is no inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. Eye witness account of the incident is available. The trial is pending, therefore reliability of witness cannot be tested at this stage as it may prejudice the parties. The points pertaining to the nature of accusation, the severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering of the evidence, possibility of threatening to the witnesses and complainant, genuineness and broad spectrum of the prosecution case have also been duly considered. There are sufficient materials against the applicant.