JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. This application is filed by the applicant Bechu Pandey with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 49 of 2006 under Sections 302, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act P.S. Bariya district Ballia.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that in the present case an F.I.R. has been lodged by Gupteshwar Paswan at P.S. Bariya on 15.3.2006 at 10.30 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 15.3.2006 at about 10 a.m. in the vicinity of village Teg Rahi Chatti, it was lodged against applicant and two or the other unknown miscreants. It is alleged that the deceased Nagendra alias Langar son of the applicant had gone to village Teg Rahi Chatti to purchase a squirt (pickari). The applicant was instrumental for committing his murder. Due to his murder the day of Holi was converted into sorrow and thereafter, inquest report was prepared by the I.O. and the dead body was sent to mortuary where the post mortem examination report was prepared. According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased had received only one incised wound in front of the neck ass anti mortem injuries.
3. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri Inder dev learned Counsel for the complainant. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant.
I. That the first informant is the father of the deceased. He was not the eye witness of the occurrence, even in the F.I.R. the manner in which the deceased was murdered has not been given, even it has not been alleged that the deceased was murdered.
II. That according to the F.I.R. the manner of the alleged occurrence has not been specified even it was not alleged that even the weapon of committing the murder was not shown but in the column No. 3 of the chik F.I.R., it has been mentioned that the deceased was murdered by firearm. The same thing has been mentioned in the inquest report where as it was not mentioned in the F.I.R., which shows that the original F.I.R. was changed.
III. That the statement of the first informant Gupteshwar Paswan, witness Smt. Ramawati Devi and the witness Smt. Vidyawati Devi wife of the first informant and the statement of Rameshwar Paswan were recorded on 16.3.2006. Sri Rameshwar Paswan, Smt. Vidyawati Devi and Smt. Ramawati Dei claim themselves to be eye witnesses.
IV. That according to the statement of the first informant and others the deceased was murdered by the applicant by way of cutting the neck.
V. That material improvement was made after perusing the report, therefore no reliance can be placed on the prosecution story.
VI. That the alleged motive is false and frivolous. The deceased was murdered in some other manner but the applicant has been falsely implicated due to village party bandi.
VII. That the inquest report was prepared on 15.3.2006. The first informant Gupteshwar Dayal is the witness of the inquest also. In the column of Rai Panchan it is clearly mentioned that the cause of death was due firing. Therefore, by that time the first informant and others were having impression that the deceased was murdered due to firing, because they had not seen the alleged occurrence.
VIII. That in the present case an application dated 29.3.2006 signed by 94 persons was given to S.P. Ballia mentioning therein that the deceased was murdered by some unknown persons on 15.3.2006 when they were playing with powerful cracker and due to explosion the deceased received injuries and died on the spot, but due to some political pressure the real culprit are being escaped by the police and innocent Bechu Pandey has been implicated in the present case.
IX. That only evidence against the applicant is of Smt. Vidyawati Devi and Smt. Ramawati Devi. Both the witnesses are highly interested and partisan. In case they had seen the alleged occurrence, correct acts would have been disclosed to the first informant, which shows that the witnesses have not seen the alleged occurrence.
5. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant by submitting :
1. That the first informant is not an eye witness. He lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of the information received. The F.I.R. was lodged within half an hours. The distance of the police station was about 3 k.m. from the place of the alleged occurrence. There is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. In such short period, there was no chance to make conversation with the eye witnesses because eye witnesses being women was under sorrow and they were weeping to see the dead body of the deceased, even in the F.I.R. it was not alleged that the injuries were caused by fire arm but under some confusion it was wrongly mentioned in the aforesaid column of the chick F.I.R. that injuries were caused by the firearm. The same sentence was repeated in the inquest report, which shows that at the time of the preparation of the inquest report the F.I.R. was in existence. It is wrong to say that in the statement of the witnesses recorded on 16.3.2006 the manner of causing injury is by way of cutting the neck of the deceased has been mentioned on the basis of the post mortem examination report because post mortem examination was conducted on 16.3.2006 because the spot inspection note was prepared by the I.O. on 15.3.2006 the date of the alleged occurrence in which it was clearly mentioned that the deceased was murdered at the place 'A' by using sharp edged weapon. The statement of the witnesses were recorded on the next day of the occurrence. They have clearly stated that the applicant cause injuries on the neck of the deceased by knife. And the application dated 29.3.2006 signed by 94 persons appears to be false because it is mentioned therein that due to explosion of a powerful cracker the deceased received injury, which is not corroborated by the post mortem report because the deceased had received only one incised wound on the neck and no other injury was found on his person and this injury was not the result of explosion, which shows that the applicant has used his influence upon the villagers to give an application to the S.P. Ballia. In case he is released on bail, he shall not allow the witnesses to depose evidence against him because the first informant and other witnesses are very poor persons, they belong to the schedule cast community they are have nots, whereas the applicants are very powerful person. Therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A, and the learned Counsel for the complainant, without expression any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly, this application is rejected.