Point of Law: Section 451 CrPC reads as order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Anand Sagar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 20.07.2020 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bulandshahr in Case Crime No.264 of 2020 (State Vs. Gyanendra), under Sections 307 and 504 IPC, Police Station Jahagirabad, District Bulandshahr and to release the revisionist's licensed rifle bearing Licence No.K/146/ARMS/DM/KUL/202/2012 Rifle No.AB1300681- .315 Bore in his favour.

3. In brief, facts of the case are that Lakhma, opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR on 15.06.2020 with the allegations that accused Gyanendra has enmity with him due to altercation occurred two years ago. On 15.06.2020 at about 12:00 noon, the informant, Lakhma, Surendra, Lal Singh, Harveer, Manoj were sitting and watching the government work going on near the pond when the accused reached with rifle and started abusing him and when the informant prevented him, he fired upon him with his licensed rifle with the intention to kill him in which he escaped. On the above facts the informant lodged the FIR for initiation of legal proceeding against him.

4. After investigation charge sheet had been submitted against the revisionist under Sections 307 and 504 IPC and his licensed rifle had been taken into possession by the police. The revisionist moved an application in the Court of ACJM on which a report had been called for and thereafter the concerned court rejected the release application on 20.07.2020 which is impugned herein.

5. The revisionist has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that it is illegal and unfair and has been passed ignoring the facts and law involved in the case even without applying judicial mind and without considering background of the case in hasty manner which is bad in the eyes of law. It has been held by the Apex Court that articles prone to natural decay shall be released in favour of the owner subject to certain conditions but the trial court rejected the release application in illegal and arbitrary manner. The FIR version is totally misconceived and has been lodged merely to solve the old pending enmity. The informant did not sustain any injury and is alleged to have escaped, hence the revision be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that virtually an FIR had been lodged by the wife of the revisionist namely Kavita Devi regarding the incident dated 25.10.2018 occurred at about 09:00 a.m. about which an FIR under Sections 394, 379, 511, 452 and 506 IPC had been lodged. The informant has lodged the present FIR to mount pressure upon the revisionist to compromise the previously lodged criminal case and there is no truthfulness in the FIR.

7. The revisionist has also filed statement of PW-1, Lakhma i.e. informant through supplementary affidavit which shows that the revisionist had not fired upon the informant. He had not seen the revisionist firing upon him virtually. At the alleged placed of occurrence there were several monkeys fighting with each other and a fire occurred for dispersing them. Some of the persons informed that the revisionist had fired upon him. He had not received any firearm injury and had also not seen the revisionist firing upon him. On the hearsay of villagers he had lodged the FIR. He himself had not written the complaint. Informant - opposite party no.2 has been declared hostile and he was cross-examined by the Government Advocate but even in such cross-examination he did not favour the prosecution case. In cross-examination by the defence he deposed that he is only 8th pass. The report had neither been written by him nor it had been read over to him. He had not received any injury and he was not medically examined. The revisionist had not abused him. The witness was also cross-examined by the court in which he deposed that at the time of alleged occurrence, the accused had n