SHIV SHANKER, J. This is the first bail application moved on behalf of applicant Durga Upadhyaya, involved in case Crime No. 96 of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504 and 506, I. P. C. , Police Station Dubaulia, District Basti. 2. Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Lav Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Prabhakar Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant as well as the learned A. G. A. I have also perused the whole records. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the inquest report of the deceased Jagdish was prepared first and then the First Information Report was registered at latter stage as the distance between the place of incident and police station had been shown five kilometers in the inquest report whereas 3-1/2 Kms. has been shown in the First Information Report. Therefore, the F. I. R. was not in existence at the time of preparing the inquest report. It is further submitted that the deceased, who was a graduate, had gone to withdraw the money from the Bank but one Baniyan, one underwear and one pant was found on the dead-body and the shirt was not found upon it. Thereafter the prosecution had introduced the shirt by saying that it was lying on the spot and it was also blood-stained. If the shirt was blood stained then it ought to have been on the body of the deceased and if it was not on the body of the deceased, then it should not have been blood stained. It is further submitted that the firing was said to have been resorted from the front facing each other. If the post-mortem report is seen the injury No. 1 has caused entry towards right side of neck upper part 3 cms. below to the lobule. This injury has caused the exist wound from the left side of forehead, which shows that the trend of the injury is upward from down ward. Likewise, the injury No. 3 is on the right cheek 2 cms. anterior to the right ear lobule. This injury has also the upward trend and it has gone to brain cavity. These two injuries are not possible in the manner as alleged by the prosecution in the First Information Report. Likewise, the injury No. 3 is on the right cheek 2 cms. anterior to the right ear lobule. This injury has also the upward trend and it has gone to brain cavity. These two injuries are not possible in the manner as alleged by the prosecution in the First Information Report. It is further submitted that there are three eye-witnesses in this case, one is first informant Dinesh Yadav, who is real brother of the deceased and others are Gama and Surjan Yadav. Both these witnesses are the first cousins of the deceased. These two witnesses are purely chance witnesses and their presence at the time of incident are doubtful. It is further submitted that the statement of the first informant Dinesh Yadav was recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. on the same of the incident, i. e. , 11-4-2006 while the statements of eye-witnesses Gama Yadav and Surjan Yadav have been recorded, under Section 161, Cr. P. C. on 29-4-2006, after the lapse of about 128 days from the date of incident according to the 8th Parcha of the case diary and there is no plausible explanation as to why they were interrogated so late. 4. It is further submitted that the role of the present applicant has been shown of instigation as well as firing whereas the other eye-witnesses, namely, Gama Yadav and Surjan Yadav have given the role of instigation to other co-accused Ram Pratap, Sabhajit and Ambika. It is further contended that the applicant was arrested and a country made pistol was planted on him and it is said that this country made pistol was recovered at the pointing out of the applicant. The so-called country made pistol, which was recovered at the pointing out of the applicant, was never sent to the Ballistic Expert to be tallied with the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased. It is also necessary to point out here that no empty cartridges were recovered from the spot The applicant was implicated in few cases and in all those cases, he has been acquitted except in one case of under the Gangsters Act and it is still pending since last many years. It is also necessary to point out here that no empty cartridges were recovered from the spot The applicant was implicated in few cases and in all those cases, he has been acquitted except in one case of under the Gangsters Act and it is still pending since last many years. It is further submitted that the murder in question had been committed at a lonely place when none of the witnesses were present and the name of the applicant has been introduced because of village politics and election rivalry. It is further submitted that the place of incident from the village of the deceased is about 1-1/2 Kms. As per the site plan, the accused persons after committing the murder of the deceased run away towards canal and thereafter through the barrage, but no vehicle can play on this barrage as it is so much disturbed because of accumulation of mud at places. There was pucca road towards Dubaulia and the applicant could have very well fled away on that road instead of going on rough barrage of canal. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of complainant as well as learned A. G. A. has submitted that the bail application of co-accused Raju, whose role was also similar to that of the present applicant, had already been rejected on 17- 8-2006 by Honble Ravindra Singh, J. vide order passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16676 of 2006. This is a case of broad day light incident of murder wherein the eye-witnesses saw the incident in their presence and their presence cannot be doubted at the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that the country made pistol, which was allegedly used by the applicant, was also discovered. On his pointing out, the blood stained shirt of the deceased was also found near the dead-body of the deceased. Therefore, it cannot be said that it has been introduced later on. According to the post-mortem report, two fire-arm injuries were found on the dead-body of the deceased, which supported the prosecution version. In such circumstances, the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected. 6. This incident had occurred on 11-4-2006 at about 10. 45 a. m. while the F. I. R. was lodged and registered on the same day (11-4- 2006) at 11. In such circumstances, the bail application of the present applicant is liable to be rejected. 6. This incident had occurred on 11-4-2006 at about 10. 45 a. m. while the F. I. R. was lodged and registered on the same day (11-4- 2006) at 11. 30 a. m. by Dinesh Yadav, first informant at the concerned police station against the present applicant alongwith others. The distance in between the place of occurrence and police station has been shown 3-1/2 Kms. in the F. I. R. Therefore, the F. I. R. has been lodged within 45 minutes of the incident. In such circumstances, it is liable to be deemed that it has been lodged very promptly against the accused persons, including the present applicant. 7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that it is anti timed and it was not existence at the time of preparing the inquest report on the ground of distance of five kilometers has been shown in the inquest report. It is worthwhile to mention here that the inquest report is only to be seen for the purpose of wounds and weapon and not for any other purpose. The crime number and Sections have been mentioned in the inquest report. This shows that the F. I. R. was already in existence at the of preparing the inquest report from 12 to 3 p. m. It may be a mistake on the part of the Investigating Officer in mentioning the distance of five kilometers in place of 3-1/2 Kms. The benefit of such mistake of the police officer/officials cannot be given to the applicant. It is not liable to be deemed that it was not in existence at the time of preparing the inquest report and the F. I. R. was lodged later on. It is liable to be deemed that it has been lodged promptly against the present applicant and others. 8. It has also been mentioned in the F. I. R. that Jagdish Yadav, the deceased, brother of the informant had gone to the Bank for withdrawing the money from his account. Due to the closer of the Bank, the informant and his brother Jagdish Yadav was returning to their village and reached near the way of Shukulpur. Their cousin brothers Gama and Surjan Yadav were also met them through cycles. Due to the closer of the Bank, the informant and his brother Jagdish Yadav was returning to their village and reached near the way of Shukulpur. Their cousin brothers Gama and Surjan Yadav were also met them through cycles. They were talking with each other and reached at the culvert situate infront of village Misrauliya. Same time, two motorcyclists reached there from behind and stopped their motor cycles in front of the first in front and others. On one motorcycle Ram Pratap and Durga Upadhyaya were sitting and on another motor cycle, Raju alias Lalit Kumar Upadhyaya, Ambika and Sabhajeet Chaudhary were sitting. Accused Durga Upadhyaya (present applicant) and Raju were armed with country made pistol and raised alarm to kill him. Thereafter, accused Raju and Durga Upadhyaya shot fire with their respective weapon upon Jagdish Yadav. Consequently, he sustained injuries and fallen down on the ground and died on the spot. The other accused Ram Pratap, Ambika and Sabhajeet Chaudhary were also exhorting them upon which Durga and Raju shot fire upon them but they saved fortunately. Several persons reached there after hearing sound of the fire-arms. This incident had occurred at about 10. 45 a. m. on 11-4-2006. After leaving the dead-body of the deceased, all the accused persons ran away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter the First Information Report was lodged by the first informant Dinesh Yadav against the accused persons, including the present applicant. Therefore, the present applicant Durga Upadhyaya and Raju alias Lalit Kumar Upadhyaya are the main assailants and caused the fire-arm injuries on the person of deceased Jagdish Yadav. Consequently, he died on the spot. According to the post-mortem report, one fire-arm entry wound as ante-mortem injury, having one exit wound and another ante- mortem injury were found on the dead-body of the deceased which are as under : (1) Firearm entry wound 2. 8 x 2 cm x cavity deep on right side neck upper part, 3 cm below right ear lobule. Blackening, charring around margin of wound present. (2) Wound of exit 3. 0 x 2. 5 cm. x cavity deep on left side forehead just over lobule end of left eye brow, margins everted. Brian matter coming out. 9. No doubt, it is the case of firing from downward to upward. At the time of firing, a person naturally moves for saving himself. (2) Wound of exit 3. 0 x 2. 5 cm. x cavity deep on left side forehead just over lobule end of left eye brow, margins everted. Brian matter coming out. 9. No doubt, it is the case of firing from downward to upward. At the time of firing, a person naturally moves for saving himself. In such circumstances, the injury could be caused by the assailants, as alleged by the prosecution It is also worthwhile to mention here that it is a case of close range as blackening and charring were found on the dead-body of the deceased. In such circumstances, it is not liable to be deemed that the eye-witnesses could not be identified the assailants in the broad day light. The cause of death has also been shown due to "coma" as a result of ante-mortem fire-arm brain injuries. Therefore, the prosecution version has been supported by the post-mortem report of the deceased. 10. The blood-stained shirt was found near the dead-body of the deceased while other clothes were bearing the deceased at the time of conducting the post-mortem. Therefore, this possibility cannot be ruled out that he was going with his shirt and the same time the incident took place. Therefore, his blood was also given the spots upon the shirt of the deceased. Therefore, the bloodstained shirt was lying near the dead-body of the deceased. This incident had occurred in the month of April, 2006. 11. This is a case of election rivalry and it has been specifically in the First Information Report as well as in the statements of eye-witnesses. Both are the interested and related witnesses with the deceased. Merely, on this ground, their statements cannot be deemed suspicious and their presence cannot also be deemed suspicious at the time of incident. It is not the prosecution case that this incident had occurred in presence of other witnesses. The other persons reached at the place of occurrence after the incident. There will be no effect of recording the statements of eye-witnesses Gama Yadav and Surjan Yadav after 18 days of the occurrence as the police officials always remained busy in law and order duties and their names have already come in the First Information Report. Therefore, their statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer later on. There will be no effect of recording the statements of eye-witnesses Gama Yadav and Surjan Yadav after 18 days of the occurrence as the police officials always remained busy in law and order duties and their names have already come in the First Information Report. Therefore, their statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer later on. It is worthwhile to mention here that the police arrested the applicant in this case and on his pointing out, the country made pistol allegedly used in committing the murder of the deceased was also discovered. Therefore, this circumstance is also available against the present applicant. 12. This is a case of direct evidence and in such type of cases, motive has no significance. However, the first informant Dinesh Yadav has mentioned that there was election rivalry in between the deceased and applicant Durga Upadhyaya and Raju. Enmity is the double-edged weapon, which cuts both ways. In the present case, he had been murdered due to the enmity. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the bail application of co- accused Raju had already been rejected by this Court on the merits of the case although, it cannot be claimed to be case of parity. It is also worthwhile to mention here that the applicant has a criminal history, including one case of Gangsters Act which is still pending. 13. It is further worthwhile to mention here that it depends upon the minds of the miscreants from which way he or they will go safely either by Aam Rasta or by barrage. In the present case, the applicant had run away through the barrage of the canal for saving the life in place of pucca road. 14. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that this is case of broad day light murder of which the First Information Report has been lodged by the first informant promptly and the prosecution version is corroborated with the post-mortem report of the deceased. The country made pistol, which was alleged used in committing the murder, was also discovered on his pointing out. Enmity is the motive of the alleged occurrence and the applicant has also a criminal history. 15. Therefore, there is no force in the arguments made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and, as such, the bail application is liable to be rejected. 16. Enmity is the motive of the alleged occurrence and the applicant has also a criminal history. 15. Therefore, there is no force in the arguments made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and, as such, the bail application is liable to be rejected. 16. Consequently, the bail application is hereby rejected. Application rejected. .