Heard Shri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Manish Kumar Singh and Shri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been given by the accused applicant Madindra Maharaj @ Vijay Shankar (Kallu) in Case Crime No. 271 of 2019, under Section 302 I.P.C. & section 3/25 Arms Act, P.S.- Rampura, District - Jalaun.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Further submission of the learned counsel is that although the accused applicant is named in the F.I.R. but the informant has not seen the incident and only on the basis of suspicion said F.I.R. was lodged by Shri B.P. Pandey, the father of the deceased with the allegation that on the fateful day the accused applicant took the revolver of the S.I. Rajendra Tiwari who was deputed for his security and shot dead the deceased. Submission of the learned counsel is that nobody has seen the accused applicant committing the said offence. In respect of the witnesses who were examined during investigation the learned counsel has submitted that it has been said that the deceased was having some affair with the daughter of the accused applicant and aggrieved by this the offence was committed by the accused applicant. The submission of the learned counsel is that it appears to be most unnatural as at that time the daughter was aged about only 11 years, the witness have only seen the accused applicant at the place of occurrence with the revolver of the S.I. and the S.I. Rajendra Tiwari was trying to snatch away the revolver from the accused applicant. Further submission of the learned counsel is that S.I. Rajendra Tiwari has also been made co-accused as conspirator in the offence, therefore, his statement indicating that the death was caused by the accused applicant is not binding on the accused applicant. It has been further submitted that the accused applicant has been falsely implicated only on the basis of some suspicion and some confusion. It has been also submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is discrepancy in the time of filing of the F.I.R. in view of the chik F.I.R. and inquest report where a difference of about 15 minutes is evident in the timing of lodging F.I.R. It is further submitted that applicant has no criminal history and charge-sheet has already been filed after police investigation and applicant is prepared to furnish sureties and bonds, therefore, there is no possibility of his either fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the evidence. Applicant is languishing in jail since 26.12.2019 and undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and cooperate in trial.
Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and it has been submitted that a number of witnesses heard the sound of firing and immediately they reached there and they saw the accused applicant with the revolver of the S.I. and deceased was lying there sustaining the fire arm injury on his forehead. It has been further submitted that the witnesses have stated that the accused applicant caused the death of the deceased and it has also come in the evidence of the witnesses that the accused applicant was annoyed with the deceased as he has seen the deceased in some objectionable condition with his daughter. It has been also submitted that the co-accused S.I. Rajendra Tiwari has also given statement to the effect that accused applicant fired on the deceased and caused his death taking his revolver. It has been further submitted that considering the statement of the witnesses who immediately reached there, it is clear that the accused applicant caused the death of the decease and his conduct at the relevant time when he was seen by the witnesses was subsequent conduct after committing the offence and come under the principle of res gestae which indicates the culpability on the part of the applicant. Under the circumstances the accused applicant does not deserve any sympathy and his bail application is liable to be rejected.
Considered the submission of both the sides. The evidence on record shows that the accused applicant was seen by the witnesses reaching there, hearing the sound of firing and they found the accused applicant with the revolver and therefore, his conduct is relevant conduct being immediately after the incident and comes in the purview of res gestae which sufficiently indicates the culpability and shows that the accused applicant must have committed offence. The evidence of the co-accused is also relevant and can be taken into account.
In view of the above, considering entire facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence, I do not find any reason in allowing the bail application, therefore, the bail application is rejected at this stage.
The accused applicant however, may file second bail application after the examination of the fact witnesses during trial.
The observation made by this Court in the course of disposal of this bail application will not influence the trial and the trial court will independently take a view after considering the evidence which come forward during trial.
Order Date :- 4.2.2021 Bhanu