JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. This application is filed by the applicant Neetu alias Neetu Ram with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 172 of 2005 under Sections 302 /504 I.P.C. P.S. Teetro District Saharanpur.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that an F.I.R. has been lodged by one Ram Kumar at P.S. Teetro on 18.11.2005 at 11.30 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred at about 5.30 p.m. The distance of the police station was about 8 km from the place of occurrence. The F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and co-accused Nawab It is alleged that the deceased Sanjay Kumar real brother of the first informant had gone to purchase Beeri from the shop of one Arvind. When he reached in front of shop of one Ravindra the applicant and co-accused Nawab met him. The deceased demanded a sum of Rs. 5000/- from them which was taken as a loan. Due to that demand the applicant hurled abuses and. caused injuries by using knife blows indiscriminately. The alleged incident was witnessed by Rameshwar, Amit Kumar and Surendra Kumar. They tried to save the life of the deceased and ran away towards the place of the occurrence, but the applicant and another co-accused ran away from the place of the occurrence. They were seen by the first informant also in a running position. The deceased was taken to the District Hospital, Saharanpur where he was declared dead.
3. Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and Sri Mayank Agarwal learned Counsel for the complainant.
4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant :-
(i) That in the present case the F.I.R. is delayed. It was lodged after six hours whereas the distance of the police station was only 8 km from the place of occurrence.
(ii) That the prosecution story is not supported by the medical evidence because according to post mortem report the deceased had received 16 injuries, out of Which injury No. 4 is contusion on the outer surface of left side back of chest and injury No. 16 is contusion and the left side back of the chest and remaining 14 injuries are incised wounds. The injuries No. 4 and 16 which are contusion have not been explained.
(iii) That the first informant himself stated that he saw the applicant and other co-accused having the knife in their hands when they were running away from the place of the alleged occurrence, therefore, he is not eye witness. The presence of other eye witnesses as mentioned in the F.i.R. is highly doubtful because none of the witness is injured witness and no person of the locality where the alleged occurrence had taken place has been interrogated by the I.O. under Section 161 Cr. P. C.
(iv) That the F.I.R. is anti timed because according to prosecution version the first informant with the help of other persons had taken the deceased to the District Hospital, Saharanpur, where he was declared dead . Thereafter, he came to the police station Teetro to lodge the F.I.R. The distance of the police station Teetro from the place of the occurrence is 8 km and the District Hospital, Saharanpur is at a distance of 6C km from the police station Teetro. It is not possible, to cover such a long distance within a period of 6 hours.
(v) That the recovery of knife has been falsely shown by the prosecution at the pointing out of the applicant and nothing was recovered at his pointing out.
5. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant by submitting that the alleged occurrence had taken place at 5.30 p.m. on 18.11.2005. The F.I.R. was lodged promptly. There is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. because first of all the deceased was taken to the , District Hospital, Saharanpur where he was declared dead. Thereafter, the first informant went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. The prosecution story is fully supported by the medical evidence because the deceased had received 16 anti mortem injuries out of which 14 injuries are incised wounds and the nature of the injuries shows that all the incised wounds were caused by knife. The presence of two contusion may be due to fall etc. There were independent witnesses whose statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. and they have supported the prosecution story and at the pointing out of the applicant the knife used in commission of offence was recovered. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and 'the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and considering the facts that the applicant and one other co-accused caused 14 incised wounds by using the knife on the person of the deceased in the presence of independent witnesses and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant is not entitled for bail, therefore, the prayer for bail is refused.
7. According this bail application is rejected.