This is second bail application. First Bail Application No.2669 of 2017 was rejected by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 13.03.2018.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.257 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506, 34, 325 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh.
As a fresh ground it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that after the rejection of the first bail application the report of forensic science laboratory was received in court on 28.04.2018 pertaining to the rifle allegedly recovered from the possession of the applicant. It is mainly argued that as per the report of FSL dated 20.01.2018 the said rifle which was allegedly used in the offence belongs to the applicant was not found in working condition and it is mentioned that when for a test fire in the laboratory it was tested it could not fire. Merely on this ground it is stated that since the Rifle No.535596 was not found in working condition, so it is not possible that on the date of incident the applicant would have opened fire upon the injured.
Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. has stated that in this case occurrence is shown to have taken place on 01.05.2016 at about 4.00 P.M. so there was sufficient time for the applicant to tamper with the rifle, so when it is sent for examination it would be shown in non working condition.
In this case during the course of investigation statement of injured witnesses was also recorded who have stated that at the time of incident applicant was holding a rifle in his hands and he had opened fire from the rifle which hit one of the injured which has been discussed in the previous order of this Court dated 13.03.2018. Rifle was in a working condition at the relevant time or not and whether it was tampered can only be considered during trial when the cross examination of the person who has examined the rifle is made.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 27.8.2019 ML/-