RAVINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shishir Tandon and Sri Anil malik learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the state of U. P. ( 2 ) THIS application has been filed by the applicant Praveen Pandit with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 438 of 2005, under Section 302 I. P. C. , P. S. Civil Lines, district Meerut. ( 3 ) THE prosecution story of this case, in brief, is that the F. I. R. has been lodged by Sri Dr. V. P. Singh at P. S. Civil Lines, Meerut on 09. 12. 2005 at 9. 20 a. m. in respect of the incident which has occurred on 9. 12. 2005 at about 8. 45 a. m. The F. I. R. has been lodged against three unknown miscreants by alleging that when the deceased Shailendra Pal Singh, Advocate, the son of the first informant, was washing his car by water out side of his house, three unknown miscreants caused gunshot injuries on his person, on the sound of firing the first informant came out from the house and saw 3 miscreants fleeing on a motorcycle from the alleged place of occurrence due to firing a crowd gathered there, but immediately after the alleged occurrence the deceased was taken to the medical college by the first informant in a car, but he died in the way, thereafter, leaving the dead biody in the medical college, the first informant went to the police station to lodge the F. I. R. It was suspected that due to enmity in connection with the cable work the deceased has been murdered. On the same day of the alleged date of occurrence the I. O. came at the place of occurrence immediately after registering the F. I. R. and recorded the statements of two witnesses namely Heera Lal, the servant of the deceased and Narendra Singh, the neighbourer of the deceased. They disclosed the name of the applicant and co-accused dharmendra Sirohi as accused, but the third accused was unknown. They stated that all the 3 miscreants including the applicant discharged the shots by their revolver and pistol, consequently the deceased received injuries and after causing the injuries the miscreants fled away on a motorcycle. They disclosed the name of the applicant and co-accused dharmendra Sirohi as accused, but the third accused was unknown. They stated that all the 3 miscreants including the applicant discharged the shots by their revolver and pistol, consequently the deceased received injuries and after causing the injuries the miscreants fled away on a motorcycle. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased had received 3 firearm wounds of entry, one firearm wound of exit, one abrasion and one contusion. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the f. I. R. The naming of the applicant is after thought. The alleged eye witness namely Heera Lal and Narendra, whose statements were allegedly recorded by the I. O. on the same day of alleged occurrence i. e. 9. 12. 2005 are, highly interested witnesses, because witness Heera Lal is the servant of the first informant and witness Narendra Singh is his neighbourer. In case they had identified the applicant and other co-accused, their names would have been disclosed by them immediately after the alleged offence. It shows that naming is after thought. There was no motive or intention for the applicant to commit the alleged offence. It is further contended that the applicant Praveen Pandit was shown arrested by the police on 15. 12. 2005 alleging that he has fired at the police but was arrested from the spot and from his possession one 38 bore English revolver was recovered. The recovery of the revolver was also planted by the police by showing that he has fired at the police party. The applicant is innocent. He has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated on the basis of doubt and suspicion. ( 5 ) IN reply of the above contention the learned A. G. A. submits that the applicant could not be named in the F. I. R. because immediately after receiving the injuries the deceased was taken to medical college by the first informant and there was no occasion of meeting of the witnesses and the first informant, because the first informant himself was over worried to save the life of his son by providing immediate medical aid so he has taken his son to the medical college by his car. The witnesses have not gone in the company of the first informant, but the deceased died in the way. The first informant went to the police station from medical college directly and he has not met the witnesses Heera Lal and Narendra, that is why nobody was named in the F. I. R. After lodging the F. I. R. the I. O. came at the place of occurrence. He was immediately informed by the witnesses that they had seen the alleged occurrence and they had identified 2 accused persons including the applicant, therefore, their statements were immediately recorded under Section 161 cr. P. C. There was no chance for any deliberation or consultation. The applicant was having a strong motive to commit the murder of the deceased, because the applicant and his associates dharmendra Sirohi were having a conception that their friend Chaman was murdered by the police showing an encounter on the basis of mukhbiri done by the deceased and one Veerpal. Veerpal along with his brother have already been murdered by co-accused Dharmendra and his associates. Thereafter, the deceased has been murdered by the applicant and other co-accused persons. It has been confessed by the applicant also before the police, which has been corroborated by the F. I. R. of the case crime No. 301 of 2001 connected with case crime No. 302, 303, 304 of 2004, P. S. Lal Kurti, district Meerut. It was lodged against the Chaman and narendra and by the F. I. R. of the incident dated 9. 6. 2005, in which Veer Pal and Amar Pal were murdered by Vatan Singh, the brother of Chaman Singh. Its accused Vatan Singh in the jail. He has made a conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased also and the applicant is having criminal antecedents. He is a known criminal. He has fired at police party also on 15. 12. 2005, but he was arrested by the police along with 38 bore English revolver. He has been involved in criminal cases cases of crime No. 130 of 1995, under Sections 394, 307/411 I. P. C. , Case Crime no. He is a known criminal. He has fired at police party also on 15. 12. 2005, but he was arrested by the police along with 38 bore English revolver. He has been involved in criminal cases cases of crime No. 130 of 1995, under Sections 394, 307/411 I. P. C. , Case Crime no. 131 of 1995, under Sections 307 I. P. C. , Case Crime No. 61 of 1995, under Sections 307 and 302 I. P. C. , Case Crime No. 99 of 1995, under Sections 307 and 302 I. P. C. , Case Crime No. 225 of 1995, under Sections 2/3 U. P. Gangsters Act. , Case Crime No. 139 of 1995, under Sections 25/4 Arms Act. , Case Crime No. 15 of 2003, under Sections 25/4 Arms Act. , Case Crime No. 198 of 2003, under Sections 8/15 NDPS Act all are P. S. Nai Mandi, District Muzaffarnagar. Case Crime No. 441 of 2005, under Section 307 I. P. C. , P. S. Civil Lines, District Meerut. , Case crime No. 442 of 2005, under Sections 25/27 Arms Act, P. S. Civil Lines, District Meerut. The applicant has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 2/3 of the U. P. Gangsters Act for a period of two years R. I. in case crime No. 225 of 1995. He has been convicted in case crime No. 15 of 2003 under Sections 25 Arms Act with the fine of Rs. 100 and in remaining cases of P. S. Nai Mandi, Muzaffarnagar he has been acquitted. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not allow any witness to give the evidence against him and he may abscond also. 100 and in remaining cases of P. S. Nai Mandi, Muzaffarnagar he has been acquitted. In case the applicant is released on bail he will not allow any witness to give the evidence against him and he may abscond also. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the allegations and the fact that though the applicant is not named in the F. I. R. , but he has been named by two witnesses on the same day when I. O. came at the place of occurrence immediately after lodging the F. I. R. and before lodging the F. I. R. there was no occasion for them to meet the first informant and disclose the name of the applicant, who categorically stated that the applicant and two other co-accused fired at the deceased, an advocate has been murdered in a broad day light, in the city of Meerut, the alleged offence is of grave in nature, it is having far reaching consequences, it is a challenge to the concept of rule of the law and the applicant has a criminal back ground, if such person by creating the atmosphere of fear and terror and adopting different modes to tamper with the evidence, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail, therefore, the prayer for bail is refused. ( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, the bail application is rejected. . .