JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. This application has been filed by the applicant Prem with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 6 of 2002 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 504, 506 and 452 I.P.C. P.S. Bhopa district Muzaffarnagar.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that in this case an F.I.R. was lodged by one Yogesh at P.S. Bhopa on 10.1.2002 at 5.35 p.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 10.1.2002 at about 4-4,1/2 p.m. The F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and co-accused Ompal @ Bhola, Jitendra @ Pappu, Ravindra @ Bablu, Satyendra @ Mintu. It is alleged that the first informant came to his house about 4.30 p.m. and saw that his brother deceased Lokesh @ Kanha, his mother injured Mahendri and his father deceased Mahendra were lying in an injured condition. On his hue and cry some persons came there who disclosed that at the exhortation of the applicant Prem, the applicant who was armed with tabal, co-accused Ompal was armed with Sariya, Jitendra was armed with a country made pistol and co-accused Ravindra was armed with spade and co-accused Satyendra was armed with sword chased the deceased Lokeksh, the co-accused Jitendra fired at the deceased Lokesh. Consequently, he fell down. Thereafter, all the accused persons caused injuries on his person by their respective weapons. At his shouting his father Mahendra and mother Mahendri came to his rescue and the deceased Lokesh was over powered by them. The accused persons cut them also. This incident was witnesses by some other persons also. The accused persons extended threat to face the same consequence, in case anybody gave evidence against them. All three injured persons were alive at that time, they were taken to the district hospital Muzaffarnagar and a medical aid was provided to them. The first informant went to the police station and lodged the F.I.R. under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 504 and 307 I.P.C. but all the injured except Mahendri died in the hospital. Thereafter Section 302 I.P.C. was also added. According to the medical examination report of the deceased Lokesh @ Kanha. he had received 4 incised wounds, one stab wound and three abrasions and the deceased Mahendra had received five anti mortem injuries, but all the wounds were stitched, according to his medical examination report he had received multiple incised wounds. The medical examination report of Smt. Mahendri shows that she had received 4 incised wounds.
3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant;
(i) That in the present case five persons were named as accused and specific allegations of causing injuries were made against them but during investigation the I.O. came to the conclusion that the co-accused Ompal @ Bhola, Jitendra @ Pappu were detained in district jail in a case under Section 307 I.P.C. on the day of alleged occurrence therefore final report was submitted in their favour. In such a situation no reliance can be placed on the statement of the witnesses.
(ii) That according to the prosecution version the applicant was shown armed with tabal but according to the injuries received by the deceased none of the injuries was typical tabal injury.
(iii) That the first informant is not an eye witness.
(iv) That the applicant are innocent, they have been falsely implicated due to village party bandi It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that there is specific allegation against the applicant of causing injury by using the weapon tabal and the deceased person have received injuries which were incised wounds also which may be caused by tabal.
(v) That by way of submitting final report in favour of co-accused Ompal @ Bhola, and Jitendra @ Pappu the prosecution story as a whole cannot be made doubtful. The deceased had received injuries cause by tabal.'
(vi) that in the present case two persons have been murdered and one person have received injuries. Therefore the applicant may not be released on bail.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and considering the fact that the offence is of grave nature in which two persons have been murdered and one person has received injuries and without expressing any opinion about the merits of the case, the applicant are not entitled for bail. Therefore, prayer for bail is refused.
5. Accordingly this bail application is rejected.