JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri K.D. Tiwari learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
2. From the perusal of the record it reveals that in the present case the F.I.R was lodged by S.I. Shyam Singh Yadav on 13.1.2005 at 5.30 p.m., which was registered at case crime No. 3 of 2005, P.S. Kudhaud, District Jalaun Under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 I.P.C. and Sections 12/14; DA. Areas Act.
3. According to prosecution version one mukhvir khas gave the information to the first informant that gang leader Nirbhay Gujar and Mangli Kevat along with their associates were present in Jungle where they were taking liquor. On that information the first informant and other police personnel having their arms and ammunitions proceeded towards the Jungle and under the direction of the higher officers the force was divided in several teams. The police personnel were seen by the dacoits. They started firing towards police force at about 2.20 p.m. in self defence. The firing was done by the police personnel also. The dacoits were chased by police force. The gang leader Nirbhay Goojar asked his associates that not to run away because the police personnel are less us in number. The three abducted persons were also in custody of the miscreants. Thereafter, again firing was done from both the sides in which the In-charge of S.O.G. S.I. Om Veer Singh and Constable Kalloo Singh received injuries. The firing was done between both the parties for about 45 minutes, but the police force got the success in rescued the life of three abducted persons, but the miscreants ran away from the place of occurrence by leaving their firearms, cartridges and other daily use articles. In the said firing one Anil Kumar the alleged abducted person had also sustained gunshot injuries caused by the miscreants. All the three injured persons were rushed to the hospital by police jeep. Their condition was serious. Therefore, S.I. Om Veer Singh, Constable Kalloo Singh were referred to Regency Hospital, Kanpur Nagar and Anil Kumar and abducted persons were referred to the District Hospital. The name of the applicant is came into fight during investigation in the statements of witnessed recorded nder Section 161 Cr. P.C.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R, and he was not arrested from the spot and there is no independent witness to support the prosecution story. The applicant was falsely implicated in the present case and the applicant was not put up for identification. There is no specific allegation against the applicant of causing injuries.
5. It is opposed by learned A.G.A by submitting that the name of the applicant has been disclosed by the recovered abducted persons. They are independent witnesses and in the present case S.I. Om Veer Singh and Constable Kalloo Singh received injuries. There was a police encounter, in which firing has been done for about 45 minutes between the police and the dacoits. The dacoits left the place of occurrence leaving their firearms and other articles in a huge quantity. From their possession three abducted persons were recovered in which one Anil Kumar was seriously injured. The applicant is having criminal antecedents-Ten cases were registered against him, so the applicant does not deserve for bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the facts that in the said incident one S.I. And one police constable received gunshot injuries and three abducted persons were recovered from the place of the occurrence in which one abducted person was seriously injured and there was a recovery of firearms, cartridges and other daily use articles which were huge in quantity and the applicant is having criminal antecedents whose name has been disclose by abducted persons. In such circumstances the contention made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not named in the F.l.R. and no individual role has been assigned to the applicant and he was not arrested from the spot is having no substance for the purpose of granting bail
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find that it is not a fit case for bail at this stage.
Accordingly, the bail application is rejected at this stage.