JITENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed by the applicant Jitendra Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 561 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504 and 302, I.P.C. and Section 2/3 of U. P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention), 1986, P.S. Raksa district Jhansi.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Jagdish Singh Bundela on 15.7.2006 at about 00.10 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 14.7.2006 at about 6.15 p.m., the distance of the police station was about 2 km. from the alleged place of occurrence. THE applicant and four other co-accused persons are named in the F.I.R. It is alleged that the co-accused Ranjeet Singh molested the daughter of the first informant for which he was scolded. THE family of Ranjeet Singh was having annoyance with the family of the first informant. THE co-accused Ranjeet Singh had extended threat to the first informant and the deceased that they would be killed. On 14.7.2006 at about 6.15 p.m. the applicant, co-accused Ranjeet Singh, co-accused Mangal Singh alias Chaiva armed with the country-made pistol, co-accused Saheb Singh alias Baghu armed with axe (kulhari) and co-accused Pritam Singh armed with lathi, made assault on the deceased at the exhortation of the co-accused Pritam Singh. He was caught hold by the co-accused Saheb Singh alias Sabu and thrown on the ground, then the applicant and two other co-accused persons discharged three or four shots which hit on the person of the deceased. THE deceased was taken to the Medical College, Jhansi where he was declared dead; leaving the dead body in the mortuary the first informant went to the police station to lodge the F.I.R.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the prosecution story is not corroborated by the post mortem examination report. There is no explanation of six lacerated wounds. The alleged occurrence has taken place in a lonely place, role of firing is assigned to three persons including the applicant whereas the deceased has received only two gun shot wounds of entry in which injury No. 1 was having the blackening and tattooing, it was caused from a close range. The injury No. 2 was not having any blackening or tattooing, it has not been specified as to whose shot hit the deceased. The F.I.R. is delayed and there is no plausible explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R.