PANKAJ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This application has been filed by the applicant Pankaj with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 285 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302, I.P.C., P.S. Delhi Gate district Aligarh.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Nadeem Ullah on 29.5.2006 at about 10.05 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 28.5.2006 at about 9.00 p.m., the distance of the police station was about 1-1/2 kms. from the alleged place of occurrence. THE applicant and six other co-accused persons are named in the F.I.R. THE F.I.R. has been lodged alleging therein that on 28.5.2006 at about 9.00 p.m. the first informant alongwith his brother deceased Azim Ullah Khan and Smt. Uzma, wife of the deceased, were coming back to their house from the Railway Road Bazar, when they reached near Tonga Stand, the applicant and other co-accused persons having country made pistol and iron rod who were coming from in front side. THEy exhorted and discharged shots, consequently, the deceased received injuries on his stomach. THEreafter, the applicant used sword blows on the head of the deceased consequently, the deceased fell down. Any how, the first informant and the wife of the deceased could save their life after running away from the place of occurrence. THE deceased was taken away by the police to J. N. Medical College where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was having no enmity with the deceased nor he was having any motive to commit the alleged offence. The deceased was assaulted by some unknown persons, at that time neither the first informant nor the wife of the deceased were present there, because he was admitted to the hospital by the police. There is no dying declaration of the deceased. The presence of the witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence was highly doubtful because admittedly they ran away from the place of occurrence and they did not receive any injury. The deceased was taken to the police by one Parvez son of Abdul Sami, who has not been cited as a witness in the F.I.R. The conduct of the witness shows that he had not seen the alleged occurrence. The F.I.R. was not promptly lodged. IT was lodged in the next morning. The F.I.R. is ante-dated. At the time of preparation of the inquest report the F.I.R. was not in existence because in the inquest report neither the case crime number nor the time of lodging the F.I.R. has been mentioned even the weapon used in the commission of the offence has not been mentioned. The statement of the witnesses other than complainants were recorded on 7.6.2006, i.e., 10 days after the incident. According to the statement of Smt. Uzma, widow of the deceased and Aslam have not assigned any specific role to the applicant. The co-accused Bansi alias Basuwa was named in the F.I.R. and the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. as accused but during investigation it was found that Bansi has already died on 13.5.2005, prior the alleged incident. The prosecution story is not corroborated by the Post Mortem Examination Report. The application made by the applicant on 13.6.2006, before the C.J.M. that the applicant was not known to the witnesses, therefore, he may be put up for identification parade, but it was opposed by the prosecution and the learned C.J.M. rejected that application on 17.6.2006. The applicant is a shopkeeper. He is having no criminal antecedent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case.