PANKAJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Pankaj Singh and Golu with a prayer that they may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 263 of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302, I.P.C. P.S. Bhadohi district Sant Ravi Das Nagar.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Satya Narain Gupta on 4.10.2006 at about 9.15 p.m., in respect of the incident which had occurred on 4.10.2006 at about 8.10. p.m. THE distance of the police station was about 4 km. from the alleged place of occurrence. THE alleged incident has been committed by five miscreants in which the applicant and Aqil Siddiqui are named in the F.I.R. It is alleged that at the time of the alleged incident, the first informant his uncle, deceased Raj Kumar Gupta and his younger brother, were sitting at their medical shop in Chandni Chowk Nai Bazar, five or six miscreants including the applicants, having country made pistols, came there and discharged shots indiscriminately consequently, the deceased Raj Kumar Gupta and injured Kripa Shanker sustained injuries. Due to the act done by the applicants and other co-accused persons, a panic was created in the market and shops were closed. Both the injured were taken to the hospital where Raj Kumar Gupta was declared dead.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that according to the prosecution version five or six persons discharged shots indiscriminately but the deceased had received one gun shot wound of entry and one lacerated wound. The injured also received one gun shot wound of entry having its exit wound. IT has not been specifically alleged as to whose shot hit the deceased and the injured. The first informant is the sole witness. The prosecution story is not supported by the site plan. The presence of the applicant at the alleged place of occurrence is highly doubtful because some unknown persons, as alleged by the prosecution, have also committed the alleged offence. During investigation the Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the co-accused Aqil Siddiqui was not present at the alleged place of occurrence. In such circumstances the participation of the applicants is highly doubtful. The applicant is not having criminal antecedent.