JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. This application has been filed by the applicant Manoj with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1416 of 2007 under Sections 302, 376 and 511 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act P.S. Amroha Dehat, District J.P. Nagar.
2. The facts in brief are that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Mahendra Singh on 24.9.2007 at about 1.30 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 24.9.2007 at 1.00 a.m., the distance of the police station was about 8 km from the alleged place of occurrence. The applicant and three other co-accused persons are named in the F.I.R. It is alleged that on 24.9.2007 at 11.00 a.m. the deceased Smt. Jai Kali had gone to agricultural field to take the fodder, when she was cutting the fodder, the applicant and other persons committed rape with her, on her shrieks Hemraj and Brij Pal came at the place of occurrence, they saw that the deceased was murdered by way of strangulation. According to the Post Mortem Examination Report, the deceased has sustained two injuries in which injury No. 1 was ligature mark around the neck and injury No. 2 was abrasion. The cause death was due to ante mortem strangulation. The applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, J.P. Nagar who rejected the same on 4.1.2008. Heard Sri V.M. Zaidi, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Rajeev Sicodia and Sri Atul Sicodia, learned Counsel for the complainant.
3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the first informant is not an eyewitness even according to the F.I.R. the alleged witness Hem Raj and Brij Pal have seen the alleged incident. The first informant is not allegedly the eye witness. This incident has been witnesses by Hem Raj and Brij Pal, who were present at the alleged place of occurrence, their statements were recorded on 23.10.2003 whereas the alleged incident has taken place on 24.9.2007 and the prosecution story is not corroborated by the Post Mortem Examination Report. There was no injury to show that the rape was committed with the deceased, this story is belied by the report of the Pathologist also as no spermatozoa was found in the vaginal smear and there is no evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to rape and thereafter she was killed. The applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated only on account of ill will of the first informant. The applicant is not having any criminal antecedent.
4. In reply to the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant that in the present case, F.I.R. has been promptly lodged, the alleged incident has been witnessed by Hemraj and Brij Pal, whose statements have been recorded by the I.O. on 23.10.2007, they have fully supported the prosecution story, they have heard the conversation also, they have clearly narrated the entire prosecution story to the first informant who lodged the F.I.R., the prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence because in the report of the Pathologist a fair number of epithelial cells were seen in the vaginal smear which shows that the rape was committed with the deceased. The cause of death was due to strangulation. The applicant is a very powerful person. The first informant belongs to weaker section of society. In case, he is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence.
5. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and considering the post mortem report and the report of pathologist and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected.