JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri S.P.S. Raghav, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anil Raghav learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the state of U.P. and Sri B.K. Solanki learned Counsel for the complainant.
2. This application has been filed by the applicant in with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 219 of 2005, under Sections 147, 302, 307 I.P.C., P.S. Sadabad, District Hathras.
3. The prosecution story of this case, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Sri Hari Prasasd at P.S. Sadabad, Hathras on 03.6.2005 at 2.10 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 02.6.2005 at about 5.00 p.m. The F.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and 5 other co-accused persons. The distance of the police station was only 15 kms from the alleged place of occurrence. It is alleged that on 2.6.2005 at about 5.00 p.m. the first informant, his wife Smt Barfi Devi and his son deceased Dharmendra were at their agricultural field. The applicant and 5 other co-accused persons armed with pharsa, kulhari and ballam came there and caused injuries on the person of the deceased and the injured Barfi Devi. Due to injuries caused by the applicant and other co-accused persons the wife and son of the first informant became seriously injured, they were taken by the first informant to the hospital at Agra, but the son of the first informant died in the way and the wife of the first informant was admitted in the hospital in a serious condition. Thereafter, the first informant went to the police station along with the dead body of the deceased. During investigation it has been specifically alleged that the applicant was armed with pharsa and according to the post mortem examination report deceased Dharmendra Kumar had received 5 ante mortem injuries in which injuries No. 1 and3 were incised wound, injuries No. 2 and 5 were punctured wound and injury No. 4 was linear abrasion and injured Barfi Devi has sustained one incised wound 8 cm x 2 cm x cavity deep on iliac forsa, loop of intestine was coming out.
4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that in the present case the F.I.R. has been lodged against 6 persons, but the deceased has received only 5 injuries. It has not been specifically alleged that who caused the injuries on the person of the deceased and injured. The F.I.R. is delayed, it was lodged after great thought and consultation. According to the statement of Smt Barfi Devi the injuries were caused in some other manner. She stated that she came in rescue of her son then the injuries were caused by the applicant and co-accused Karamveer by using ballam and Chhoori on her person and the deceased. The statement of the injured is not reliable. It is after thought, because it was recorded after 20 days of the alleged occurrence. It is further contended that the applicant is a young man. His date of birth is 1.4.1987. He is not having any criminal antecedents.
5. In reply of the above contention the learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for the complainant submit that there is no delay in lodging the F.I.R., because immediately after the alleged occurrence the deceased and injured were taken to the hospital by the first informant, thereafter, the first informant along with the dead body of the deceased went to the police station to lodge the F.I.R. The role of causing injuries has been assigned to the applicant and other co-accused persons. It has been specifically alleged by the injured that injuries on her person and the deceased were caused by the applicant and co-accused Karamveer by using Chhoori, and ballam. The deceased had received 2 incised wounds and injured had received one incised wound. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. There is no undue delay in recording the statement of the injured under Section 161 Cr. P.C., because her condition was very serious after the alleged occurrence. The specific role of causing the injuries is assigned to the applicant; therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant 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. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.