JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh. J.
1. Heard Sri S.S. Shukla learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
2. This application is filed by the applicant with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime no. 148 of 2004, under Section 307 I.P.C. and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Lalauli, Fatehpur.
3. From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case the F.I.R. was lodged by Sri Purushottam Yadav at the police station Lalauli on 31.10.2004 at 9.40 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 31.10.2004 at 7.00 p.m.
4. According to prosecution version the first informant along with other police personnel were on patrolling duty and they were making checking of vehicles also, -because they were directed to check suspects criminals. At about 7.00 p.m. three miscreants were seen riding on a motorcycle. The torch light was flashed and they were asked to stop there. The motorcycle was driven by the applicant and two other co-accused person Raja and Nakki were the pillion riders. The motorcycle was not stopped and they proceeded towards east. They were chased by the first informant and other for a distance of 100 yards. Their motorcycle was stopped. They were again asked to stop, but they exhorted to kill the first informant and others. Consequently, constable Ashfaq Ahmad caught hold the applicant, then the applicant fired at constable Ashfaq Ahmad, who received injury on the right side of the stomach. In the mean time other co-accused armed with country made pistol successfully escaped away, but the applicant was arrested on the spot after using necessary force and from possession of the applicant one country made pistol of 315 bore was recovered and in its barrel a empty cartridge was found and there was faul smell of fresh firing, two live cartridges were also recovered from the pocket of the applicant. The first informant and others made their maximum efforts to procure the public witness but the persons present there refused to become the witness due to fear of the accused persons. The injured constable was medically examined. The medical examination report shows that he has received gunshot injury on the abdominal wall and there was evidence of free air below the domes of diaphragm.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was falsely implicated. He was not arrested as alleged by the prosecution and injured constable Ashfaq Ahmad has been discharged on 31.10.2004 from Sadar Hospital. The X-ray report shows that nothing abnormal was detected. Subsequently, the injured was admitted in Regency Hospital, Kanpur, from where he was discharged on 5.11.2004. The injured hale and hearty and there is not public witness to support the prosecution story. The applicant is in jail since 31.10.2004.
6. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that the applicant caused injury on the person of constable Ashgaq Ahmad. The applicant was arrested on the spot along with country made pistol in which empty cartridge was found. The persons present there were not ready to become witness due to fear of the applicant. The applicant is having a criminal back ground. Therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
7. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.
8. According the bail application is rejected at this stage.