JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava(learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Sarvesh , learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A.
2. The applicant has applied for bail in Case Crime No. 210 of 2003 under Sections 307, 504 and 506 I.P.C. P.S. Fazalganj District Kanpur Nagar.
3. From the perusal of the record,-it appears that in the present case, the alleged occurrence had taken place on 10.9.2003 at about 4.30 P.M. at the shop of the first informant. Its F.I.R. was lodged by Sri Mahendra Kumar Tripathi at P.S. Fazalganj on 10.9.2003 at 8.30 P.M. The distance of the police station was 2 Km. from the alleged place of occurrence. According to the prosecution version, the first informant alongwith his brother was sitting at his shop on 10.9.2003 at about 4,30 P.M. The injured Rajendra Kumar and Dhirendra Kumar were sitting on the counter of the shop. The applicant alongwith his two un known associates armed with country made pistol came at the shop of the first informant and started firing by the country made pistols with the intention to commit the murder and at that time they were hurling the abuses also. Due to fear and terror, the customers of the shop ran away from there. In the said firing Rajendra Kumar, brother of first informant and Virendra Kumar received gun shot injuries on the head , back and chest and there was a profusec bleeding. After receiving the injuries, they fell down. The injured were kept' on a rickshaw and taken to the hospital. Its information was given to the control room on telephone. The first informant alongwith his nephew were going to the police station, in the way, the police of P.S. Fazalganj met them in the way who advised that injured be taken to hospital first. Thereafter, the injured was taken to the hospital and after their medical examination, the first informant went to the police station and lodged a F.I.R. The medical examination report of Rajendra Kumar Tripathi shows that he was brought oy the first informant and he was medically examined on 10.9.2003 at 5.45 P.M. he received multiple fire arm wounds of entry on the left side of neck and upper of the chest, there was a fresh bleeding and the he probing could not be done. The injured was having blackening also. Supplementary medical examination report shows that there was fracture of left squamous temporal bone and left parietal bone with multiple metallic foreign bodies noted in the left ternporo parieto occipital region, as such injury was grievous and dangerous to life. The medical examination report of another injured Virendra Kumar Tripathi shows that he was also brought to the hospital by Mahendra Kumar Tripathi. He was medically examined on 10.9.2003 at 6.05 P.M. He had received two injuries in which injury no. 1 was multiple fire arm wound of entry on the upper part of the chest, left shoulder joint and left side neck. The probing could not be done due to bleeding. The injury was having blackening. The injury no. 2 was lacerated would on left parietal region. Both the injuries were on the vital part of the body. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is cross version. The applicant has caused injury in the right of self defence.
4. From the side of the applicant, a cross F.I-.R. in case Crime No. 210-A of 2003, under Sections 307 and 504 I.P.C. And Section 3(2) of S.C. /ST. Act was registered at P.S. Fazalganj on 10.9.2003 at 7.20 P.M. It was lodged by the applicant against injured Surendra Tripathi , injured Rajendra Tripathi, injured Virendra Tripathi and Amit Tripathi, in which it was alleged that the above mentioned accused persons fired at the applicant but he did not receive any injury. It is further contended that the prosecution has not come with clean hands because the injury no.2 of injured Virendra Kumar Tripathi is lacerated wound on left parietal region of scalp, it was caused by hard blunt object but this injury has not been explained because according to the prosecution version, the injury was caused only by country made pistol. It is further contended that the applicant was falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity and the applicant is in jail for the last more than one year. The injured have been discharged from the hospital.
5. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that it is a broad day light murder which has taken place in a open market. The applicant caused the injuries , consequently, 2 persons received injuries who were sitting on a counter of their shop. The injuries are on the vital part of the body and are dangerous to life. It is further contended that the injury No.2 , which is a lacerated would on the person of the injured Virendra Kumar Tripath could be caused by the fire arm also because it was advised for X-ray. It is further submitted that the conditions of the injured remained very serious , but by high level medical treatment, their lives could be saved and there had been operation of brain of the injured Rajendra Kumar Tripathi on 13.9.2003, though this injured has been discharged from hospital but his condition is not satisfactory, even some of the organsof his body are not properly functioning. It is further contended that a cross F.I.R. Was registered by the applicant, after investigation it was found that it was a false and concocted F.I.R., so the final report was submitted.
6. By the cross F.I.R., it is established that they were present at the place of occurrence and in cross F.I.R. , there is no reference off the injuries received by the injured Rajendra Kumar Tripathi and Virendra Kumar Tripathi. It is further contended that the applicant did not surrender in court immediately thereafter but he surrendered in the court after submission of the charge-sheet. It is further contended that in this case, if the applicant is released on bail, he will temper with the prosecution witnesses. There was strong motive for the applicant to commit the alleged offence because the applicant wanted to grave the house of the injured persons.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant , learned counsel for the complainant and the learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.
8. Accordingly this bail application is rejected at this stage.