MANOJ SHAHU Vs. STATE O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This bail application has been filed by the applicants Manoj Shahu and Lalu @ Lala Ram with a prayer that they may be released on bail in case crime No. 1286 of 2006 under sections 307, 302,504 IPC, P. S. Kotwali, District Jhansi.

(2.) THE facts in brief, of this case are that FIR has been lodged by Veeru @ Virendra Kushwaha on 21. 8. 2006 at 2. 00 A. M. at P. S. Kotwali in respect of the incident which had occurred on 20. 8. 2006 at about 11 P. M. THE FIR has been lodged against accused Omi Shahu, Rinku, Manoj Shahu and Lalu @ Lala Ram with the allegation that the applicants and other co-accused came at the house of the first informant on 20. 8. 2006 at about 11. 00 P. M. , at the house of the first informant, there was a Katha function on 20. 8. 2006, at the time of the arrival of the accused persons, the informant, his father deceased Ram Kishan and his other family members were seeing off their guests. THEre was a sufficient electric light at the house of the first informant. THE accused Omi Sahu, Rinku, Lalu @ Lala Ram were armed with country made pistols and applicant Manoj Sahu was armed with Rifle, they came at the door of the first informant, on account of old enmity and hurled abuses, it was objected by the deceased consequently the accused persons discharged the shot at the deceased and Suresh, the servant of the first informant, the deceased sustained injury on his chest, thereafter all the four accused persons left the place of the occurrence. THE deceased and injured Suresh were taken to the medical collage, Jhansi where the deceased was declared dead by the doctors and injured Suresh was admitted in the hospital for treatment. According to the post-mortem examination report the deceased sustained four injuries, in which injury No. 1 was gun shot wound of entry on the left side of chest, its exit wound was injury No. 2. Injury No. 3 was lacerated wound on 16 cm below left elbow and injury No. 4 was lacerated wound on 18 cm. below left elbow. THE medical examination report of injured Suresh shows that he sustained a fire arm wound of entry on the right upper chest. THE applicants applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge, Jhansi who rejected the same on 21. 9. 2006, being aggrieved from the order dated 21. 9. 2006 the present bail application has been filed.

(3.) IN reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A. G. A and learned Counsel for the complainant that due to old enmity the alleged offence has been committed by the applicants and other co-accused persons. On the day of the alleged offence there was a Katha function at the house of the first informant, there was a sufficient light at the place of the occurrence. The applicants and other co-accused persons came at the house of the first informant with fire arm and discharged the shot, consequently one person lost his life and one person sustained injuries, The FIR has been promptly lodged at 2. 00 A. M. The distance of the police station was about one and half kilometre from the alleged place of occurrence. The injured was immediately brought to the hospital where he was admitted on 21. 8. 2006 at 1. 15 A. M. The injured had sustained two gun shot wounds of entry and one abrasion. The injuries were having blackening and tattooing. The deceased had sustained gun shot wound of entry on the chest having its exit wound and injuries No. 3 and 4 were also caused by firm arm. The alleged occurrence had been witnessed by so many persons. There is injured witness to support the prosecution story. IN the present case the country made pistols have also been used and a photographic description cannot be given at the time of preparation of the site plan, the minor contradiction in the site plan and medical examination report do not affected the totality of the case. There may be no dispute about the time of the occurrence. It appears that due to confusion, the time of the incident has been mentioned in the wed head ticket as 1. 00 A. M. even it was not possible to reach the hospital within twenty five minutes. On the basis of the entry made in the wed head ticket the time of the occurrence may not be doubtful. There is no circumstance to show that the FIR is ante timed. The applicants are very powerful, in case of release on bail, they shall temper with evidence and will not permit the witness to record the evidence fairly, Therefore, the applicants may not be released on bail.