HARJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant.

(2.) The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that as perversion of the FIR, the main role of firing on the deceased has been assigned to co-accused Chandra Shekhar alias Guddu while no role of firing has been assigned on the deceased to the present accused-applicant. The complainant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. too has not assigned the role of firing on the deceased to the present accused applicant.From a perusal of copy of the post-mortem examination report of the deceased, it appears that the deceased had sustained single fire arm injury.The participation of the accused applicant, prima facie, appears to be doubtful. He, therefore, deserves to be released on bail.

(3.) Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the role of firing has been assigned to the present accused applicant in the FIR as well as in the statement of complainant. The fire opened by the accused did not hit to any one. Learned counsel submits that the allegations of the FIR are not the only criteria to grant bail to the accused; rather nature of offence,complicity of accused, possibility of tempering the witnesses as well as the conduct of the accused will be considered for granting the bail to him. Undisputedly, this is a case of heinous nature of crime. The accused applicant belongs to a criminal family. The father of the accused applicant had been accused in committing murder of real uncle of the complainant and faced trial under Section 302 I.P.C. in Sitapur. He was held the guilty by the trial court and convicted for life imprisonment. The accused has got criminal history of three cases. First case relates to under Section 302 I.P.C.The occurrence had taken place in Sitapur. In this case, although the accused has been acquitted but his criminal history is there. Second criminal case was registered against him under Section 307 I.P.C. in district Hardoi in which the Investigating Officer after investigation of the case submitted charge sheet under Section 324 I.P.C. This case is still pending against him. Third case is the present case. In this way, the accused applicant has got criminal background. He is trying to win-over the prosecution witnesses. The trial has commenced. The prosecution has examined the complainant Anoop Kumar Mishra as PW-1 whose cross examination was deferred as the accused sought adjournments. He is not cooperating with the trial. Keeping in view the conduct of the accused,nature of offence as well as the complicity of accused-applicant, he does not deserve to be released on bail.