JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri S.P. Singh Raghav, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anil Raghav, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri D.R. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the complainant.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the First Information Report of this case has been lodged by Vedveer at Police Station Anoopshahr on 7.1.2006 at 6.45 P.M. in respect of the Incident which had occurred en 7.1.2006 at about 5.00 P.M. The distance of the Police Station was about 9 kl.mts. from the alleged place of the occurrence. The First Information Report has been lodged against the applicant and three other cc-accused persons. It is alleged that the first informant and the deceased Suraj Singh, the Pradhan of the village were returning to their houses but in the way the applicant and other co-accused persons armed with the country made pistol discharged the shots towards the deceased who received injuries and fell down, the alleged occurrence was witnessed by Ajaipal Singh and Gajendra Singh. The witnesses and some other persons of the village made hue and cry, on that the villagers having Lathi and Danda came at the place of the occurrence and chased the miscreants, one of the miscreants was surrounded in the sugancane field of one Annu. He discharged shots towards the villagers and thereafter he himself caused injury by using the country made pistol, he was beaten by Lathi and Danda and apprehended by the villagers. Consequently he died on spot and one of the miscreants was arrested by the villagers after doing marpit who disclosed his name as Sohanveer.
3. The applicant and other persons was having enmity with the deceased since the election of the village Pradhan, due to that enmity the deceased Sohan Singh had been murdered. It is further contended that the retraining two miscreants were also surrounded by the people but they successfully escaped away. The deceased Suran Singh had received five fire arm wound of entry and two exit wounds. The dead body of the co-accused Mukesh Mukki was also lying there, he had received one fire arm wound of entry having blackening and six lacerated wounds.
4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the applicant was falsely implicated in the present case and the witnesses mentioned in the First Information Report are highly interested and partisaned and the prosecution story is not corroborated by the medical evidence. It is further contended that the deceased Suraj Singh was having enmity with one Ravindra Singh who was defeated candidate. The applicant was having no enmity with the deceased the alleged occurrence had not taken place as alleged by the prosecution because the deceased Suraj Singh and some other unknown persons armed with the country made pistol committed the murder of Mukesh Mukki. He died on the spot in retaliation. The family members of Mukesh attacked the deceased and committed the murder. In the present case, from both the sides one person each has list the life, the deceased Suraj Singh was having the association with the criminals and he was having his multi-coloured enmity, the applicant is a young boy aged about 20 years, he is having no criminal antecedents.
5. In reply to above contention, the learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that in the present case the First Information Report has been promptly lodged, the applicant and other co-accused persons have committed the murder of the deceased inside the village and deceased had received five gun shot wound of entries. In the said incident one miscreant has also lost life and another miscreant Sohanveer was apprehended by the villagers. The deed body or the miscreant Mukesh Mukki was recovered from the sugarcane field, it was far away from the place where the deceased Suraj Singh was murdered. The applicant was having motive to commit the alleged offence and the alleged occurrence had been witnessed by the independent witnesses, therefore the applicant nay not be released on 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 learned Counsel for the complainant and the seriousness of the allegations 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, this bail applications rejected.