1.Following aspects are considered :-
(1) The applicant is a police personnel, who is alleged to have caused death of a person by opening fire from his service Arm.
(2) Statements of eye-witnesses, including that of Devendra, indicate that on a petty ground, fire was opened by the applicant.
(3) Looking to the seriousness of the offence with which the applicant is charged and considering the provisions contained in Section 437(1)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the judgment of the Apex Court in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav(2004 AIR SCW 1581), the applicant's case for bail cannot be favourably considered.
(4) The Sessions Case is committed and the charge is about to be framed.
2.The contention that witness-Devendra could not have seen the incident because he was in custody in the lock-up at the time of the incident and, as per the map, which is following part of the charge sheet, he could not have seen the incident cannot be considered at this stage, as it would amount to appreciation of evidence. Prima facie, there is ample material to involve the applicant with the firing and resultant death of the deceased and, therefore, the applicnat's case for bail cannot be accepted. Hence, the application is rejected. Notice is discharged.
3.It is clarified that the observations made in this order are purely for the purpose of deciding the question of bail and may not be treated as conclusive by the Trial Court.
[ A. L. DAVE, J. ] gt