DESH DEEPAK YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri J. S. Sengar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V. P. Srivastava, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey advocate for the first informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) THIS is second bail application. The first bail application was rejected on 30.3.2006 on the ground that the applicant was assigned specific role of firing and since it was a broad day light occurrence, the applicant was declined the liberty of bail. Sri Sengar has moved this bail application after receipt of the report of ballistic expert dated 25.7.2006 annexed as Annexure-13 to the affidavit filed in support of the second bail application. The misfired cartridge recovered from the place of occurrence was tested and analysis result is that the said cartridge was not fired from the alleged D.B.B.L. gun said to have been used by the applicant at the time of occurrence. Sri Sengar has argued at length that since the recovered cartridge was not fired from the D.B.B.L. gun, therefore, the prosecution case that the applicant had caused the fatal injury, is not substantiated and the applicant is entitled for bail. The next argument is on the basis of injuries shown in the post mortem report. A part of bullet was found in injury No. 2. THIS again shows that the gun was not used at the time of occurrence. Besides, copy of the statements of Shailendra Yadav, Amarpal and Roop Pal annexed as Annexures-10, 11 and 12, have been placed before me where there is a definite improvement in their statements to substantiate the prosecution case. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that all these circumstances is a definite pointer that 12 bore gun was not used in the incident.

(3.) TAKING into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail. The second bail application is rejected.