(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
(2.) Perused the record.
(3.) Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that according to the statement of first informant the deceased, who was his brother, was accused in a case of murder of one Kamal Singh, but after trial he was acquitted. Co-accused Sitaram is the son of the aforesaid Kamal Singh and because of the murder of his father, co-accused Sitaram nurtured feelings of vengeance against the deceased and was also heard expressing his inclinations to avenge the death of his father. But so far as the applicant is concerned, he was village Pradhan. Further submission is that it was also stated by the first informant before investigating officer that the deceased of this case had also illegally encroached and had taken possession of one guava grove but the applicant being custodian of Gaon Sabha property, had managed to dispossess the deceased from the aforesaid encroachment and after doing so, a pond was created in the place of grove. Contention is that with the aforesaid background of facts, it is clear that the applicant could not have had any motive against the deceased to commit his murder while to the contrary, the conduct of the applicant in getting the deceased dispossessed from his illegal encroachment can certainly be said to be a reason for the first informant to nurture feelings of ill-will against him. Submission is that therefore, the applicant had absolutely no motive to commit the murder of the deceased. It was also submitted that even according to the statement of the first informant, he had not seen the applicant shooting at the deceased and according to him, he had only seen the applicant and the co-accused near the place of occurrence with country made pistols soon after occurrence. Further submission is that there is no incriminating recovery effected from the possession of the applicant or at his instance while the weapon of offence is said to have been recovered at the instance of co-accused Sitaram, who also had the motive to commit the murder of the deceased. Counsel for the applicant has also tried to argue that from the post mortem report also it does not appear to be a case of two shots and there is a reasonable possibility that the first injury received by the deceased might not have been caused by any gun shot. Contention is that in any view of the matter, in the aforesaid background of the facts, the case of the applicant stands distinguishable from that of co-accused Sitaram and, therefore, on a prima facie basis a case for bail is made out in favour of the applicant. Much emphasis was laid by the counsel on the period of detention and it has been pointed out that the applicant has spent more than a year in jail and he is languishing behind the bars since 22.4.2015 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required.