ABHISHEK SINGH @ SONU Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant, a victim who sustained injuries in the occurrence, seeking cancellation of bail granted to the Respondent No. 2 by an order dated 18.1.2013 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (in short Special Judge, S.C.S.T. Act), Allahabad in Case Crime No. 359 of 2012 under Sections 307, 323, 504 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station- Colonelganj, District- Allahabad.

(2.) The quintessence of the arguments advanced across the bar by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the respondent No. 2 is an inveterate hard core criminal having to his discredit long criminal antecedents. He attempted to commit murder of the applicant causing grievous fire arm injury on the vital part of the body of the injured during broad day light in a thickly populated area of Allahabad in presence of several persons including the eyewitnesses named in the F.I.R. On the basis of statements of the eyewitnesses and consequent upon the investigation of the case that followed, the respondent No. 2 was clearly nominated as the actual shooter. The motive behind the occurrence was the rivalry between the applicant and the Respondent No. 2 resulting from students' union election.

(3.) The main brunt of the arguments advanced by Learned counsel for the applicant is that the brother of the applicant, who is an eyewitnesses of the occurrence and also the first informant, had filed objection against the bail application of the Respondent No. 2 in the court of ASJ, Xth where the bail application was pending. In his objections, the first informant has not only vividly described the role of the Respondent No. 2 in attempting to commit murder of the applicant but has also disclosed his criminal antecedents. The Respondent No. 2, it is submitted, however, filed no affidavit to repudiate the contents of the objections so moved on behalf of the applicant. Learned counsel further argued that the bail application of the Respondent No. 2 filed on 23.8.2012 continued to protract in the court of ASJ, Xth for three long months but on all dates fixed in the case, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 only sought adjournments during this period. The bail application, it is submitted, was transferred from the court of ASJ, Xth to the court of ASJ, Vth under the administrative order dated 23.11.2012 of the Sessions Judge, Allahabad but there too, it continued to protract up-to 18.1.2013 by moving repeated adjournment applications by Respondent No. 2. Virtually, no efforts were made to get his bail application decided.