RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. for the State of U. P.

2. This bail application has been filed by the applicant Neeraj alias Neeraj Tyagi with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 2006 of 2008 under sections 307 and 504, I. P. C. P. S. Sahpau district Hathras.

3. The facts in brief of this case are that the F. I. R. of this case has been lodged by Jai Ram Singh, on 28. 10. 2008 at 15. 05 in respect of the incident which had occurred on 28. 10. 2008 at about 2. 30 p. m. the dis tance of the police station was about 8 km. from the alleged place of occurrence, the applicant and the co-accused Pooran Singh are named in the F. I. R. It is alleged that on 28. 10. 2008, the injured Mohan Singh was called from his house by the applicant and the co-accused Pooran Singh at the pretext of doing work of milk. The injured had gone in his company having Rs. 7, 000/ -. The applicant and the co- accused Pooran Singh demanded money for taking liquor from the injured who refused the same thereafter, he was abused and beaten by them. Thereafter at the exhortation of the co-accused Pooran, the applicant discharged shot by gun shot injury which hit near the left ear, it bullet was embedded in the jaw, according to the medical examina tion report, the injured Mohan was medi cally examined on 28. 10. 2008 at 6. 00 p. m. he had sustained gun shot wound of entry having the dimension of 1 cm. x 1 cm. on left side of skull lower part, the injured was having tattooing, it was kept under obser vation and advised for x-ray and surgeon was informed for the purpose of surgery in X-ray report the radio opaque metallic density shadow shaped like bullet was seen in maxillary region. Metallic dust was seen in left maxillary interior area. The applicant applied for bail, the same has been rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hathras on 29. 1. 2009.

4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that there is no motive or intention for the applicant to commit the alleged offence. The prosecu tion story is fully concocted, the injury re ceived by the injured was not grievous in nature, and there is no supplementary medical examination report to show that the injury was grievous or dangerous to life. It is further contended that the recov ery memo

of the blood stained earth have not been prepared, nothing incriminating has been recovered from the alleged place of occurrence. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution story. The injured has been discharged from the hospital. He is hale and hearty. The appli cant is a peace loving person, he is not having any criminal antecedent. He is in jail since 1. 11. 2008.

5. In reply to the above contention it is submitted by the learned A. G. A. that the motive has been given in the F. I. R. Itself, active role of causing injury is shown to the applicant, the injury was on the vital part of the body, it was gun shot injury, injury was serious in nature for which surgery was done, therefore, the applicant cannot be released on bail.

6. Considering the submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. and from the pe rusal of the record, it appears that active role of causing injury on the vital part of the applicant has been assigned to the ap plicant. The injury was dangerous to life. The applicant is in jail since 1. 11. 2008 at this stage, the applicant is not entitled for bail, the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly this application is rejected. Application Rejected.

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document