ARUN ARYA @ ARUN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri A.K. Sachan, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that all the six persons named in the FIR including the applicant are alleged to have fired indiscriminately causing injuries to Ravindra, Deepak and Vikas alias Banti. Later, Ravindra died in the hospital. It was contended that as per the statements of complainant and the injured witnesses, the prosecution case against all the six accused is identical whereas co-accused Pramod, Bholu alias Pradeep Kumar and Ashok have been granted bail vide orders dated 22.5.2013, 27.5.2013 and 6.6.2013 respectively passed in criminal misc. bail applications no.233, 14450 and 15600 of 2013.

(3.) It was contended that the co-accused were granted bail while distinguishing the case of the applicant on the ground that the solitary firearm injury suffered by the victim was caused by the applicant. The contention is that the complainant Devki Nandan Sharma, the injured Vikas alias Banti and another injured Deepak in their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. did not specify the role of the applicant of causing firearm injuries to the deceased, but stated that all the six persons named in the FIR, fired indiscriminately .