JUDGMENT K.N. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Sri. Pulak Ganguli holding brief on behalf of Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prashant Kumar holding brief on behalf of Sri Niraj Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A, perused the F.I.R, Post mortem report and rejecting the bail.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant has taken me through the F.I.R and statement of informant. According to F.I.R. the fire was suddenly made on account of anger. Thus, this does not contain element of intention. Learned counsel for the applicant has taken me through the statement of informant wherein three lines of bottom were referred. The three lines in the bottom show that after easing out there was some altercation between the deceased and the assailant and they grappled with each other and during this grappling the shot was fired suddenly. It shows that it was only an accident. The learned counsel for the complainant has referred to the order rejecting the bail in which the court has observed about the above statement that the informant appeared in the court at the time of argument of the bail and said that the shot was fired in his presence by the accused and police is deliberately damaging the case. It is absolutely not proper that the bail was dismissed on the ground. The bail application has to be decided on the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and other norms laid down by the superior court from time to time. This procedure has nowhere been provided that at the time of hearing of the bail, the accused or complainant or witnesses may appear and make any submission before the court and such submission may be given weight for disposal of the bail.
3. Considering this I find it a fit case of bail.
4. Let applicant Umesh alias Ummi be released on bail, in case Crime No. 246 of 2004, under Section 304 I.P.C. Police Station Charkhari, District Mahoba, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned court.