Learned counsel for the complainant files counter affidavit, which is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant.
The accused-applicant Shiv Bahadur Chauhan is involved and detained in Case Crime No. 848 of 2007, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangster Act, from Police Station Gosaiganj, District Sultanpur.
The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that on the exhortation of accused Bhim Bhadur, Man Singh and Mata Prasad alias Karia, accused applicant Shiv Bahadur opened fire from the licensee gun of his father which caused injuries to Ramesh, brother of complainant Subhash Chandra Verma, later on Ramesh succumbed to his injuries before he was admitted to hospital.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the licensee gun of father of accused was recovered by the Investigating Officer which was sent to Ballistic Expert for examination. The report of Ballistic Expert shows that no cartridge was fired from the gun. It appears that the deceased had not died on account of fire opened by the accused Shiv Bahadur from his father's licensee gun. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that there was mob at the time of occurrence. It appears that someone had fired which had caused injuries to the deceased. All the co-accused have already been ordered to be released on bail. Therefore, present accused applicant also deserves to be released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and argued that this is a case of broad day light occurrence. Therefore, there could no be mistake in identifying the accused. As per post-mortem examination report of the deceased, he had sustained gun shot injuries. The prosecution witnesses have given eye account of the occurrence. The applicant is the main accused who had opened fire on the deceased which resulted in his death. Keeping in view the nature of offence, the accused applicant does not deserve to be released on bail.
Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant.
The occurrence is alleged to have taken place during broad day light. The prosecution witnesses have given eye account of the occurrence. The applicant is the main accused, who is said to be opened fire on the deceased. As per post-morten examination report of the deceased, it appears that he had sustained gun shot injuries which resulted in his death. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature of offence, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
The application for bail is, therefore, rejected. However, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial pending against the accused expeditiously.
13.01.2010 Renu/-