Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 821 (ALL)

BABENDRA ALIAS BABBU v. STATE OF U P

2007-03-30

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2007
RAVINDRA SINGH, J. This application has been filed with a prayer by the applicant Babendra alias Babbu that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 71 of 2006 (S. T. No. 1555 of 2006) under Sections 302/34, I. P. C. P. S. Modi Nagar District Ghaziabad. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Raj Bahadur on 6-3- 2006 at about 7. 30 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred at about 1. 00 p. m. , the distance of the police station was about 1 k. m. from the alleged place of occurrence. The F. I. R. has been lodged against the applicant and two other co-accused namely Rakesh alias Billu and co-accused Satraj. It is alleged that on 6-3-2006 the deceased Amar Jeet Singh alias Ramji alongwith his family members and other villagers had come to the office of the Sugar Cane Society Modi Nagar for election of the delegates. The applicant was having enmity since the election of the Zila Panchayat, he had done marpeet with the driver of the first informant, and he had discharged shots at the door of the first informant. He alongwith the co-accused and other supporters had come to the office of for nomination. The deceased had filed his nomination and had made objection and and started some altercation. The deceased was caught hold by the co-accused. Thereafter, the applicant caused fire arm injury on the person of the deceased by country made pistol, the first informant and others made attempt to apprehend the applicant. The applicant and other co-accused persons successfully escaped from the alleged place of occurrence by extending threat showing the country made pistol. Due to the firing done by the applicant, a panic was created at the office of the Sugar Cane Society. The deceased was taken to Jiwan Hospital from where he was referred to Ghaziabad. The deceased was admitted in Yashoda Hospital where he was declared dead. 3. According to the post-mortem examination report the deceased had received one fire arm wound of entry and three abrasion. 4. Heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Smt. Raj Laxmi Sinha, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. For the State and Dr. D. R. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the complainant. 5. 3. According to the post-mortem examination report the deceased had received one fire arm wound of entry and three abrasion. 4. Heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Smt. Raj Laxmi Sinha, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. For the State and Dr. D. R. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the complainant. 5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the prosecution story is false, concocted and highly improbable. The presence of the witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence is highly doubtful because there is no injured witness and during the course of investigation the statement of the first informant Raj Bahadur was recorded under Section 161, Cr. P. C. who changed the F. I. R. version by alleging that Amit and Pradeep were also present there at the place of occurrence, is highly doubtful because no blood was found at the place of occurrence. The statement of Jugvendra was recorded who stated that the applicant fired at the back of the deceased. The Statement of Ajmer Singh S. I. who was on his duly at the alleged place of occurrence stated that after hearing the noise of the gun shot, he reached there. He was told by the first informant that his brother was murdered by the applicant and others. The F. I. R. of this case is anti timed. The investigation was transferred to C. B. C. I. D on the application given by the wife of the deceased in which witness Jugvendra and Ashok have filed their affidavits mentioning therein that they have not seen the alleged occurrence. Thereafter, the matter was again transferred to the local police who submitted the charge-sheet. The prosecution story is not corroborated by the post-mortem examination report because there is no explanation of the abrasion mentioned by the villagers who were present there have filed their affidavit against the prosecution story. The applicant is innocent. He has been falsely implicated due to ill will of the first informant. 6. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by the learned A. G. A. That it is a day light murder. The F. I. R. Has been promptly lodged. Specific role of causing injury has been shown to the applicant. There is no material to "show that the F. I. R. was ante timed. 6. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by the learned A. G. A. That it is a day light murder. The F. I. R. Has been promptly lodged. Specific role of causing injury has been shown to the applicant. There is no material to "show that the F. I. R. was ante timed. The applicant was having strong motive to commit the alleged offence. The affidavits filed by the villagers are having no importance. In case the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence, active role of the applicant of causing injury on the person of the deceased and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. 8. Accordingly this application is rejected. Application rejected. .