NAVIN CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POONAM Srivastava, J. Heard Sri Daya Shankar Mishra, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

(2.) COUNTER, rejoinder, supplementary counter and supplementary rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties which are on record.

(3.) AFTER taking into consideration the arguments of the Counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. , assuming that the injuries caused to the deceased are as a result of single shot by the accused and narration of the First Information Report viz-a-viz causing injury to the deceased Satya Prakash, it cannot be ascertained at this stage conclusively which of the assailant caused the fatal injury to the deceased Satya Prakash. Perusal of the First Information Report shows that it has specifically been mentioned that the present applicant alongwith one other co-accused opened fire at the deceased Satya Prakash who died on the spot alongwith three others. The alleged tainted investigation in respect of case crime Nos. 83 and 84 of 2004 is also no ground for grant of bail to the present applicant. The circumstances relating to the purchase of tender forms etc. are concerned and also the time of occurrence as alleged in the First Information Report and the time shown by PWD department in respect of purchase of the said tender forms are all matters of trial after the evidence is recorded. I am not inclined to make an assessment of the documentary evidence at this stage.