OMKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. This bail application has been filed by the applicant Omkar Singh with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 896 of 2007 under section 307 IPC P. S. Kotwali Mainpuri, District Mainpuri.

(2.) THE facts in brief of this case are that FIR of this has been lodged by Ajay Yadav on 28. 3. 2007 at 6. 25 P. M. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 28. 3. 2007 at about 4. 30 P. M. THE applicant and co-accused Jubraj Singh, Udai Prakash Singh and Sushil Kumar are named in the FIR, the distance of the police station con cerned was about one kilometres from the alleged place of occurrence. It is alleged that injured Vishwa Nath Singh Yadav, Advocate was going to market in the com pany of the first informant and Kaushalendra Kumar Singh from their house. When they reached in front the gate of Nagar Palika office, the applicant and other co-accused' armed with country made pistols came their and after making exhortation they discharged the shots by their country made pistols with intention to commit the murder of injured Vishwa Nath Singh, Ad vocate consequently the injured sustained gun shot injury. Immediately thereafter he was shifted to District Hospital for provid ing the medical aid. It is alleged that mo tive of the alleged offence was that brother of the co-accused Jubraj namely Sukhram and his sons were convicted for life impris onment, they were presuming that the in jured was instrumental in getting them punished that is why they were having enmity. THE co-accused Udai Prakash Singh was teacher in the college of Indrajeet Shiksha Sadan, Jot, Mainpuri, who was appointed by the injured, the Manager of that collage and the co-accused Sushil Ku mar, his brother-in-law co- accused Udai Prakash Singh due to this reason they were having the enmity with the injured. Ac cording to the medical examination report the injured was medically examined at District hospital, Mainpuri on 28. 3, 2007 at 4. 40 P. M. He was brought by his son Ajay Yadav, the first informant of this case. THE injured had sustained fire arm wound of entry 3 cm. x 1 cm. of left side on back of chest, Its exit wound is injury No. 2 in front of the chest. Injury No. 3 was fire arm gut ter shaped wound of 3. 2 cm. x 1 cm. skin deep over right side of lower part of chest. THE injuries No. 1 and 2 kept under obser vation and advised for X-ray. Injury No. 3 was simple in nature, the injuries were caused by discharging of fire arm. THEreaf ter the injured was referred to Agra where the treatment of the injured was done. THE applicant applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri, the same has been rejected on 22. 4. 2008. Being aggrieved from the order dated 22. 4. 2008 the present bail application has been filed by the appli cant.

(3.) IN reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant that in the bail application filed by the applicant no ground for bail has been taken. Only one ground has been taken in which it has been mentioned that the full facts and circum stances of the case have been given in the accompanying affidavit. But in the affidavit filed by Udai Prakash Singh 16 paragraphs have been mentioned, but in none of the paragraph it has been mentioned that ap plicant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further contended that in the present case role of firing is assigned to the four persons in cluding the applicant according to the statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. The injured had sustained two fire arms wound of entries, it is not necessary that all the shots discharged may hit the injured but it is clear that firing has been done more than one person and applicant is not entitled to get the benefit of the par ity with the co-accused Udai Prakash Singh and Sushil Kumar Singh because they had surrendered immediately after alleged in cident and they have released on bail on 26. 4. 2007 and 8. 5. 2007 respectively. But the applicant did not surrender immediately after incident. The proceeding under sec tion 83 Cr. P. C. were also initiated against him, thereafter he was sent to the jail on 18. 2. 2008 i. e. about 11 months of the al leged incident which shows that the appli cant is not law abiding person and the con duct of the accused is one of the point for not granting the bail. It is also submitted by Counsel for the complainant that co-accused Jubraj Singh is still absconding. The applicant is real brother of the co-accused Jubraj Singh. The strong motive is against the applicant and other co-accused Jubraj Singh because their brother Sukhram and his sons have convicted for life impris onment and they were having the suspi cion that the injured was instrumental in getting them punished whereas the co- accused Udai Prakash Singh and Sushil Kumar Singh were having no concerned with the applicant and co-accused Jubraj Singh. Both the co-accused Udai Prakash Singh and Sushil Kumar are close relative of the injured. The injured had sustained gun shot injury on the chest also which was grievous in nature. It is a day light incident. The FIR has been promptly lodged, appli cant was having strong motive to commit the alleged offence. The injured had filed the affidavit in the Court of learned Sessions Judge mentioning therein that shot discharged by the applicant and Jubraj Singh hit him whereas I. O. has not men tioned it in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. It is specifically alleged that shot discharged by Jubraj Singh hit on his chest. IN case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with evidence, therefore the applicant may not be released on bail.