VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Vinod Kumar with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 350 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 352, 307, 302, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and Section 7, Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Kalyanpur, district Kanpur Nagar.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Vinay Kant Sharma at police station Kalyanpur on 15.6.2006 at 9.15 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 15.6.2006 at about 8.00 a.m. THE F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and other accused persons alleging therein that the applicant and other co-accused persons wanted to take the possession of plot Nos. 1352 and 1349, its complaint was made to the District Magistrate, Kanpur in pursuance of order passed by the District Magistrate, the Nayab Tahsildar was deputed to hand over the possession to the first informant on 15.6.2006, but in the morning on 15.6.2006 at about 8.00 a.m. the first informant and his brother Harsh Kant Sharma alongwith Arvind Saini, Jai Prakash Yadav and Alok Shukla were present at the shop of building material. At that time Harsh Kant Sharma the brother of the first informant was worshiping inside the shop. THE applicant, co-accused Akhilesh alias Chhotkau alias Chhote Baua, his brother namely Naresh alias Bare Baua, Mukesh alias Tillan, Pramod alias Pammu, Vinod Kumar and Rakesh alias Mahatma armed with country made pistol and co-accused Ganju Bajpai armed with danda came there and hurled the abuses and made assault on the deceased. THE first informant and other persons ran towards the road and firing was made towards them, but fortunately nobody received any injury. THEy saw that the co-accused Naresh alias Bare Baua, Mukesh alias Tillan, Pramod Kumar alias Pammu and applicant Vinod Kumar discharged the shots by their country made pistol at the deceased inside the shop and the co-accused Ganju Bajpai used lathi blow. THE applicant Vinod Kumar was also exhorting to kill the deceased. THEreafter, a crowd gathered and started shouting, seeing the crowd, the co-accused Rakesh alias Mahatma and co-accused Akhilesh alias Chhaotkau alias Chotka alias Baba discharged shots in the air and by extending threat they ran away from the place of the occurrence. Due to this incident, a panic was created and the fear and terror was created. According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased had received five firearm wound of entries and two exit wounds.

(3.) IN reply of the above submissions the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant submit that the alleged occurrence had taken place in a broad day light inside the market. The active role of causing the injuries by the firearm is also assigned to the applicant. There is no inconsistency with the medical evidence because the injuries were caused on the person of the deceased when he was worshiping inside the shop. The deceased was taken in the injured condition to the Regency Hospital. IN the admission form the time of admission is mentioned as 8.30 a.m. on 15.6.2006, but due to some mistake it has been wrongly mentioned in the memo of death information sent to the police station concerned by the hospital. The alleged incident had taken place in the presence of independent witnesses. The gravity of the offence is too much. IN case the applicant is released on bail he shall tamper with the evidence.