RAVINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS application is filed by the applicant Abhimanyu Singh alias Damphal with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 65 of 2005 under Sections 147,148,149,307,302/34 i. P. C. P. S. Nadigaon district Jalaun. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution version, the F. I. R. of the present case has been lodged by one mahendra Kumar Sharma at Police Station Nadi gaon on 14. 6. 2005 at 7. 45 p. m. in respect of the occurrence which had occurred on 14. 6. 2005 at about 5 p. m. The distance of the police station was about 200 meters from the alleged place of occurrence. The F. I. R. was lodged against the applicant and five other co-accused persons. According to the prosecution version, the first informant, who is the father of the deceased Ashok Kumar Sharma, his brother Jitendra Kumar and his sisters son Abhivyas had gone to the market of Nadigaon for purchasing some articles, when they reached near the shop of one Farid Qadri, one Marshal Jeep came there and from that vehicle applicant and other co-accused persons came out who were armed with weapons and all the accused persons in abusive language stated that the deceased be murdered to finish his leadership. Thereafter the applicant fired at the deceased. The co-accused Tajuddin and manvendra Singh fired at the first informant, but he did not receive any injury. Due to firing done by the applicant and other co-accused persons, the atmosphere of terror and fear was developed in the market. Consequently, the shopkeepers ran away from the shops by shutting down their doors. Thereafter all the accused persons left the place of occurrence by showing the weapons and discharging the shots. The alleged occurrence was witnessed by some persons including Bhanwar Singh and Raghvendra Singh. The deceased in injured condition was taken to the hospital at Konch by his vehicle but he died in the way. Thereafter all the accused persons left the place of occurrence by showing the weapons and discharging the shots. The alleged occurrence was witnessed by some persons including Bhanwar Singh and Raghvendra Singh. The deceased in injured condition was taken to the hospital at Konch by his vehicle but he died in the way. The dead body of the deceased was taken to hospital, leaving the dead body here the first informant went to the police station where he lodged the F. I. R. ( 3 ) HEAD Sri Satish Trivedi, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri M. C. Chaturvedi and Sri S. C. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. on behalf of the State of U. P. ( 4 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that in the present case the F. I. R. is delayed, it was lodged after great thought and consultation because the police station was hardly at a distance of 200 meter but the F. I. R. is delayed by 2. 45 hours and there is no plausible explanation of delay in lodging the F. I. R. ( 5 ) IT is further contended that in the present case the presence of the first informant and other witnesses mentioned in the F. I. R. was highly doubtful at the alleged place of occurrence, because, according to the F. I. R. version the deceased in injured condition was taken to the hospital at Konch in a vehicle of the first informant but the memo of death sent by the hospital to the S. H. O. P. S. Kotwali Konch district Jalaun shows that one dead body was taken to the hospital who died due to gun shot injury by Constable Ram shromani Singh and Gyan Singh of the Police Station Nadigoan. By this memo it is established that the deceased was not taken to the hospital by the first informant and the witnesses mentioned in the F. I. R. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the F. I. R. version, the co-accused Tajuddin and Manvendra Singh have fired but the first informant did not receive any injury whereas there was equal motive against the deceased and his sons also, which shows that neither the first informant nor other witnesses were present at the place of occurrence. ( 7 ) IT is further contended that according to the prosecution version, all the five accused persons were armed with weapons but it is strange to note that only the applicant discharged one shot, consequently the deceased received one gun shot wound entry and its exit wound. No other injury was caused by the accused persons on the deceased. ( 8 ) IT is further contended that no specific weapon was shown in the hands of the applicant and other co-accused persons in the F. I. R. and the statements of all the witnesses namely Jitendra kumar, Bhanwar Singh and Raghvendra. They were interrogated and their statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr. P. C. on 17. 6. 2005. Their statements are delayed without any plausible explanation which makes their presence doubtful. It is further contended that in the present case the statements of the constables namely Ram Shromani Singh and Gyan Singh who brought the deceased to the hospital Konch were not recorded by the investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr. P. C. which belies whole prosecution story. ( 9 ) IT is further contended that the recovery of the country made pistol at the pointing of the applicant is fake and it was planted. ( 10 ) IT is further contended that in the present case an F. I. R. is anti time and the prosecution story is not corroborated by the postmortem report also. The applicant is a peace loving person but he has been falsely implicated in this case due to some political reason and he is in jail since 18. 6. 2005, the applicant will not temper with the evidence and he shall cooperate with the trial, in case he is released on bail. The applicant is a peace loving person but he has been falsely implicated in this case due to some political reason and he is in jail since 18. 6. 2005, the applicant will not temper with the evidence and he shall cooperate with the trial, in case he is released on bail. ( 11 ) IT is opposed by the learned A. G. A. by submitting that in the present case there is no delay in lodging the F. I. R. because the delay has been explained in the F. I. R. as the deceased in the injured condition was immediately taken to the hospital at Konch to provide medical aid but the deceased died in the way, after leaving the dead body in the hospital the first informant went to the police station Nadigaon where he lodged the F. T. R. , the distance of Konch is about 25 kms from Nadigaon where the alleged occurrence has taken place. ( 12 ) IT is further submitted that in the present case the presence of the first informant and other witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence was not doubtful because the deceased after receiving the gun shot injury was immediately shifted to the hospital at Konch by his personal vehicle. The police station was near the place of occurrence, it was hardly at a distance of 200 meter and the alleged occurrence had taken place in open market at day time, which created panic in the market, the shutter of the shops were down by the shop keepers, they ran away by their shops, in such alarming situation the presence of the police personnel of the P. S. Nadigaon was highly natural and two police constables also went in the company of the first informant to the hospital at Konch where it was noted that the deceased was brought by constables Ram shromani Singh and Gyan Singh of P. S. Nadigaon. In the record of the hospital the name of the companion are not recorded, therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased was not taken to the hospital by the first informant. According to the memo sent to P. S. Konch. t It was sent on 14. 6. 2005 at 6. 30 p. m. which shows that the deceased was brought to the hospital before 6. According to the memo sent to P. S. Konch. t It was sent on 14. 6. 2005 at 6. 30 p. m. which shows that the deceased was brought to the hospital before 6. 30 p. m. and he has received injuries at about 5 p. m. . It is further submitted that in the F. I. R. it has been clearly mentioned that the applicant and four other co-accused persons were armed with the weapon. The word **vlygk** is used in Bundelkhand area for firearm and there is specific allegation against the applicant that he caused injury to the deceased consequently the deceased died. The inquest report of the deceased was prepared at Konch. There was no inconsistency in the inquest report also, the F. I. R. was not anti timed. The alleged occurrence had taken place in market which created panic in the market also and the alleged occurrence was witnessed by independent witnesses. It is further submitted that at the pointing out of the applicant one d. B. B. L. (Factory made) gun along with four live cartridges were recovered and one empty cartridge was in the barrel of the D. B. B. L. gun, therefore it was wrongly contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that one country made pistol at the pointing out of the applicant was recovered, There is no delay in recording the statement of the witnesses. It was not necessary to interrogate the constables Ram Shromani Singh and Gyan Singh because they were not the eye witnesses and non interrogation of these police constables does not affect the eye witness account at all. It is further contended that the applicant is an harden criminal and he is involved in 14 Criminal cases. He is detained in jail under National Security Act also. In case he is released on bail, he will temper with the evidence and he may abscond also. The deceased was a very popular person. He was active in politics and on the day of the alleged occurrence wife of the deceased was the chair person of Nagar Panchayat Nadi gaon. He was murdered in the market and due to this murder public order was totally disturbed due to this problem the District magistrate passed order for conducting the postmortem in the night in a heavy police security. He was murdered in the market and due to this murder public order was totally disturbed due to this problem the District magistrate passed order for conducting the postmortem in the night in a heavy police security. The applicant was having strong motive to commit the murder of the applicant due to political rivalry. ( 13 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel of the applicants and the State of U. P. and considering the nature of the offence, role of the applicant the criminal antecedents of the applicant, I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled for bail. At this stage it is not proper to record any finding in respect of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY this application is rejected. . .