Hon'ble Anil Kumar Agarwal,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., Sri Kameshwar Singh and Sri B.S.Kushwaha, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the lower court record.
From the perusal of the record it appears that the appellant Krishna Bihari alias Mullu has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. for the life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 3,000/-. He has been further convicted for the offence punishable under section 307 I.P.C. for 7 years R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000/- by the trial court on 29.5.2007 From the perusal of the record it appears that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Ram Phare on 18.5.2001 at 7.00 a.m. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 17.5.2001 at about 9.00 p.m. alleging therein that the appellant was a man of criminal nature, the first informant was made the surety by him one years prior the alleged incident, but he could not furnish the surety that is why the appellant and his family member were annoyed with the first informant, on 17.5.2001 the first informant and his brother deceased Ramesh alias Tutka were going to attend a feast at about 9.00 p.m. when they reached in front of the house of Vishwa Prakash, from front side the appellant and one another person came and they gave challenge and discharged shot, consequently, the deceased sustained injuries, fortunately, the first informant could not receive any injury. According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased has sustained two ante mortem injuries in which injury no.1 was gunshot wound of entry on the chest and injury no.2 was fire arm wound(gutter shaped) on the right scalper region, in support of the prosecution version five witnesses have been examined in which P.W. 1 Sanjeev Kumar and P.W. 2 Ram Phare have been examined as eye witnesses. The learned counsel for the appellant has showed some minor contradictions in the statement of the witness and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are not inclined to release the appellant on bail, the prayer for bail is refused.
Accordingly this application is rejected.
Dt. 7.2.201 NA