SANJEEV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Sanjeev with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 996 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 504, I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Farrukhabad district Farrukhabad.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Smt. Siya Devi on 14.6.2006 at 8.10 p.m., in respect of the incident which had occurred on 14.6.2006 at about 7.00 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's persons are named in the F.I.R. It is alleged that the first informant, Meera Devi, Mangli and Sher Singh were present at the temple of Lord Shiva where the first informant was worshipping. It is alleged that the applicant and other co-accused persons came there and demanded money from Mangali, son of the first informant. He denied to pay the money as demanded by them, then he was abused and he was exhorted by the co-accused Anil to commit his murder, then he ran in a lane to save his life but shots were discharged at him by country made pistol by the applicant and other co-accused persons. THE miscreants discharged the shots and extended threats to other persons. Due to indiscriminate firing done by the applicant and others co-accused persons a panic was created in the Mohalla and the shopkeepers closed their shops and the windows of the door of the house were also closed. THE deceased Mangli in an injured condition was kept on a trolley but he died there. During investigation, also it has not been specifically alleged that whose shot hit the deceased because the deceased had received two fire arm wounds of entry whereas the role of firing was assigned to five co-accused persons including the applicant.

(3.) IN reply to the above contentions it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the alleged occurrence has taken place near a temple of Lord Shiva in a densely populated area. The F.I.R. has been promptly lodged within one hour and 10 minutes and there was no reason of false implication of the applicant. The applicant is able to move from one to another place. He has actively participated in the commission of the offence. Due to the act done by the applicant and other co-accused person a panic was created and shop keepers have closed their shops and the people have closed the door and windows of their houses. The gravity of the offence is too much.