MANISH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This application has been filed by the applicant Manish Kumar Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 218 of 2007 under sections 302, 120b I. P. C. , P. S. Bhelupur, District Varanasi.

(2.) THE facts in brief of this case are that the FIR of this case has been lodged by Udai Kumar Singh on 22. 04. 2007 at 00. 30 a. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 21. 04. 2007 at about 10. 00 p. m. THE distance of the police station was about 3 km. from the alleged place of occurrence. THE co-accused Ashok Talreja, co-accused Rajesh Khanna, Shekhar Khanna and Guddu Singh are named in the FIR. THE applicant is not named in FIR. It is alleged that deceased Raj Kumar Singh the brother-in-law of the first informant was having Sales Hotel Management, in the same establishment the co-accused Ashok Talreja was also working along with the deceased. THE co-accused Rajesh Khanna was the friend of co-accused Ashok Talreja who also often visiting the deceased but on the basis of some irregularities the co-accused Ashok Talreja ousted from the establishment that is why the co-accused Rajesh Khanna, co-accused Ashok Talreja had become too much annoyed. Prior this occurrence there had been some altercation between the co-accused Guddu Singh and security guards of the deceased, then the co-accused Guddu Singh had extended the threat to commit the murder of the deceased, it was not known to other co-accused persons. On 21. 4. 2007 the deceased had gone to attend the marriage of daughter of brother-in-law of co-accused Rajesh Khanna. THE revolver of the deceased was handed over to the co-accused Sekhar Khanna, at the instance of the co-accused Rajesh Khanna the deceased was taken to the road side where he was making the urine then some unknown persons caused the gun shot injury on his persons, consequently, he fell down and the assailant successfully escaped from the alleged place of occurrence. In the meantime the deceased was taken to Kabirchaura Hospital with the help of the police where he was declared dead. On the basis of doubt and suspicion the other co-accused were named in FIR. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased has sustained one gun shot wound of entry having its exit wound.

(3.) IN reply of the above contention it is submitted by learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that prosecution has come with fairness and it has been specifically mentioned in the FIR that some unknown persons has caused the gun shot injury on the person of the deceased but the name of the suspected accused was mentioned in the FIR and the naming of the applicant has been disclosed by the first informant only on hearsay evidence. The name of the applicant has been disclosed by the witnesses that he caused injury on the person of the deceased, he was a harden criminal. IN case he is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence, therefore, he may not be released on bail.