JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashish Chaudhary learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and Sri Mohit Singh learned counsel for the complainant.
2. This application is filed by the applicant Ikram with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 1054 of 2004, under Section 307 I.P.C., P.S. Bahjoi, district Moradabad.
3. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that in the present case F.I.R. was lodged by one Bhoora at P.S. Bahjoi on 20.11.2004 at 1.15 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 20.11.2004 at 11.30 a.m. at Bahjoi Tiraha, Sambhal road, Moradabad. The distance of the police station was 1 km from the place of the occurrence.
4. According to the prosecution version there was a dispute between the applicant and the first informant over a house. On 7.10.2004 the applicant fired at one Zamil Ahmad the brother of the first informant, but the fire missed. Consequently, Zamil Ahmad did not receive any injury. In respect of this incident Zamil Ahmad has lodged F.I.R. against the applicant and other co-accused persons. Since then the applicant was having enmity with the first informant and others. On 20.11.2004 the first informant and his father Babban, one Fakir Ahmad and Babu were going towards parsapur for the purpose of marketing, when they reached at the tiraha at about 11.30 a.m. one Herohonda motorcycle without number plate came from the back side. From that motorcycle the applicant and his brother Ashfag came out and they surrounded the first informant and others. The applicant and his brother were armed with 12 bore country made pistols. At the exhortation of the co-accused Ashfaq the applicant and co-accused Ahfaq fired by the country made pistol at the father of first informant with the intention to commit his murder. Consequently, he received injury and fell down. On the shouting of first informant and others some people gathered there and with their help the applicant was arrested on the spot and one 12 bore country made pistol was recovered from the possession of the applicant, but co-accused Ashfaq successfully ran away from the place of the occurrence. According to medical examination report of the injured Babban it appears that he had received four firearm wounds of entry, in which the injury No. 1 was on the left side of back on chest. The injury No. 2 was on front of the right upper arm, injury No. 3 was on the right side of the back of the chest and injury No. 4 was on the right index finger. All the injuries were kept under observation and advised for X-ray.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the present case co-accused Ashfaq has been released on bail by this court on 18.5.2005. The role of causing injuries to the injured is attributed to the applicant and co-accused Ashfaq, so the applicant is also entitled for bail on the ground of parity. It is further contended that the injuries received by the injured are not dangerous to life. The applicant has also received 8 injuries in which the injury No. 6 was kept under observation and advised for X-ray. The injury No. 1 was on top of the head. The injury No. 2 was also on the head. It shows that the alleged occurrence had taken place in some other manner and it may be case of self defence.
6. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that the applicant was arrested on the spot along With a country made pistol. There is specific allegation against him along with co-accused Ashfaq that they caused injuries on the person of the injured. The injured had received four injuries caused by the firearm. The co-accused Ashfaq has been released on bail only on the ground that he was not arrested on the spot where as the applicant was arrested on the spot and his case was distinguishable with the case of co-accused Ashfaq. It is further contended that it has been clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. that the applicant was arrested after doing some marpeet, therefore, in the course of arrest the applicant has received injuries.
7. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.
8. Accordingly, this application is rejected