JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. This application is filed by the applicants Vijai Pal and Rohtash with a prayer that they may be released in Case Crime No. 96 of 2005, under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Bulandshahr.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that there had been some altercation between the children of the deceased Jagdish and his neighbourer Vijai Pal about five or six days prior to the alleged occurrence but the matter was pacified. Thereafter on 20.3.2005 at about 5.00 P.M., the applicants and co-accused armed with knife and Chures came at the house of the deceased and hurled the abuses and they gave a challenge. Due to their fear the deceased along with his wife climbed the roof of Smt. Phoolwati to save their lives but the applicants and co-accused Rinku caused injuries on their persons by using knife and Churis blows. Consequently, the deceased died on the spot and his wife Smt Sharda became seriously injured. At the shouting of the first informant, many persons of the village gathered at the place of the occurrence who saw the alleged incident. On their arrival, the accused persons ran towards the Jungle. Thereafter the first informant Lakhan Singh went to the Police Station to lodge the First Information Report where it was registered on 20.3.2005 at 6.40 P.M. The distance of the Police Station was about 5 k.ms from the alleged place of the occurrence. The injured Smt. Sharda wife of the deceased was medically examined on 20.3.2005 -at 7.30 P.M. According to the medical examination report, she had received four incised wound and according to the post-mortem examination report, the deceased had received three incised wound and one stab wound.
3. Heard Sri S.P. Singh Raghav and Sri Anil Raghav, learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A.
4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that according to the prosecution version, the alleged occurrence had taken place on the roof of Smt. Phoolwati, the presence of the first informant and other witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence is doubtful and no attempt was made by the accused persons to cause injury to first informant. The prosecution story is highly doubtful and it was not occurred as alleged by the prosecution and the presence of the applicant Vijai pal, who is aged about 70 years at the alleged place of occurrence is highly doubtful. It is further contended that the alleged occurrence had taken place in the dark hours of the night but time of the occurrence had been changed by the prosecution and the alleged occurrence was committed by the unknown dacoits . It is further contended that the prosecution story is not corroborated by the postmortem examination report and most of the injuries are on the person of the deceased but are not on the non-vital part of the body and the dimension of the injuries do not tally with the weapons assigned to the accused persons and there was no sufficient motive or intention to commit the alleged incident. The applicants are innocent, they have not committed the alleged occurrence, they have been falsely implicated due to village party bandi, therefore they may be released on bail.
5. It is opposed by learned A.G.A. by submitting that the alleged occurrence had taken place in day time at about 5.00 P.M. on 20.3.2005. It was witnessed by the first informant and other persons. There was sufficient motive and intention for the applicants to commit the alleged offence which has been clearly mentioned in the First Information Report. The applicants and co-accused caused injuries on the persons of the deceased and injured by using knife1 and Churis blows. The prosecution story is fully supported by the medical evidence because the injured and deceased have received the incised wounds and stab wound. The applicants were arrested on 24.3.2005. At the pointing out of the applicant Vijai pal, one blood stained churi and at the pointing out of the applicant Rohtash one khukhari was discovered from the bushes and it is not correct that the age of the applicant Vijai pal is 70 years because when he was arrested by the police, he has disclosed his age as 55 years which is clearly mentioned in the case diary. The applicants have committed the offence and there is injured witnesses to support the prosecution story.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. and considering the role of the applicants and post-mortem examination report and medical examination report of the injured and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicants are not entitled for bail, therefore the prayer for bail is refused.
7. Accordingly, this application is rejected.