KISHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this application the applicant has sought bail in Case Crime No. 1526/2009, under Section 307 IPC, P.S. Sihani Gate, District Meerut.

(2.) ACCORDING to the contents of the FIR, on 16.9.2009 the complainant Rishikant Goel alongwith his father Mahendra Kumar Goel (injured) was returning from his office when a motorcycle coming from behind, on which there were two passengers came to the side of their car and three consecutive shots were fired by them causing injuries to Mahendra Kumar Goel and thereafter the said motorcycle borne miscreants fled away. It further mentions that the incident is of 8.45 p.m. in the evening. It further mentions that Kishan Sharma and Rajesh Sharma @ Guddu Pandit, r/o Chandani Chawk bore enmity with the complainant side that they had earlier physically assaulted the complainant's father in 1998 and had threatened him to hand over the property purchased by him to the said persons or else they would eliminate him. It further mentions that thereafter also they had intimidated the complainant's side on a number of occasions; that about 15/ 20 days earlier they had entered into the office of the complainant and had threatened the father of the complainant of being eliminated and it is a result of all this that they have attacked and shot his father in which he has been injured.

(3.) SRI V.P. Srivastava, learned Advocate has advanced two arguments in order to dislodge the first information report, consequently entitling the applicant for bail. The first argument is that the first information report as recorded seems to be improving sentence by sentence. According to him on account of enmity as admitted in the FIR the applicant has been falsely implicated. The FIR is tutored. In the opening part of the FIR, which he refers to as the first part, the assailants have not been named; what has been mentioned is that two motorcycle home assailants came from behind and opened fire at the father of the complainant but it does not disclose the names. The second part describes about the enmity between the accused and the complainant side and the third and the last part nominates the accused of having committed the crime. This according to Sri Srivastava is an improvement and the fact is that the complainant was not able to recognize the assailants. The applicant and co-accused have been falsely implicated on account of enmity.