MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This bail application has been filed by applicant Manoj Kumar who is an accused in Case Crime No 1280 of 2005, under Sections 307 and 302, I.P.C., P.S. Baraut, district Baghpat.

(2.) THE F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by the applicant himself on 24.8.2005 at 10.30 p.m. in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place on the same day at 8.00 p.m. In the said F.I.R., which was scribed by the applicant himself it is alleged that the applicant alongwith Sarvendra and Ananad Pal was going to Badarkha from Binoli on the motorcycle of Sarvendra. At 8.00 p.m. when they reached near the Culvet between Malkhpur and Chawbali then all of a sudden from the left side some miscreants appeared and hit Anand Pal on his head by danda who was driving the motorcycle. THE motorcycle lost its balance and fell down. Meanwhile, from behind a passenger bus was coming. THE applicant jumped into the bus. THE miscreants fired at Sarvendra and Anand Pal. THE applicant went to Binoli and inform the people and accompanied by them he came back on the spot. From the spot he brought the injured Anand Pal and Sarvendra to doctor Katiyar who declared Sarvendra dead and referred Anand Pal to District Hospital, Meerut. He further averred that the relatives of the injured and the deceased were informed by him and he and other passengers of the bus had seen the miscreants very well and can recognize them. THE post-mortem of the deceased Sarvendra dated 25.8.2005 indicate that he has sustained firearm injury on face, neck and abdomen with a gunshot wound of exit and the cause of his death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. THE medical report of Anand also indicate that he had also sustained fire-arm injuries. He had also received fracture of cervical vertebra and his right mandibular condyle was also fractured. All injuries of the injured Anand Pal were dangers to life. THE investigation revealed that it was the applicant who had hatched up the conspiracy and got the deceased murdered and the injured sustained injuries. On these facts the applicant has pressed for his bail.

(3.) I have considered the trial submissions, in my view, the injured person has named the applicant as the prime accused who had hatched up the conspiracy. At this stage cannot be disbelieved. I do not find any reason to grant bail to the applicant. Hence, the bail prayer is declined. The bail prayer is rejected.