SURESH CHANDRA TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

(2.) Heard Saroj Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Imran Ullah, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the F.I.R. lodged on 8.1.2018 regarding the alleged incident dated 7.1.2018; that as per averments made in F.I.R., "on 7.1.2018 at about 5:30 p.m. applicant with Vinod Kumar and Nagendra Singh with Sanjay Kumar were coming on separate motorcycles, when a white coloured four wheeler Safari dashed the motorcycle of Sanjay Kumar following which he fell down on the ground and applicant and his associates armed with fire arms came out of the vehicle, abused him and made indiscriminate firing coupled with collective exhortation that Sanjay be killed as he has done much loss in election and the applicant fired at right temple of Sanjay Kumar due to which chaos arose and people started closing their shops after which the accused persons fled away by firing and threatening; that it is also contended in F.I.R. that due to dash of vehicle, Nagendra Singh also sustained injuries;" that the post-mortem report of deceased Sanjay shows that he sustained two gun shot injuries as post-mortem states of two entry wounds and two exit wounds apart from three abrasions which could have been sustained by friction; that injured witness Nagendra Singh in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has assigned the role of causing two gun shot injuries to co-accused Krishna Kant Tiwari and Sunil and the applicant has also been assigned with the role of firing at Sanjay Kumar but there is no mention that his fire hit Sanjay Kumar; that similarly Umesh Tiwari, who also claims himself to be the eye witness of the incident has made similar statement assigning the role of firing to Krishna Kant Tiwari and Sunil while in the statements of Vinod and Raj Kumar Shukla the applicant has been assigned only with the role of exhortation; that the applicant had no reason or motive to cause death of the deceased and has been falsely implicated on account of political rivalry; that investigation of the matter was handed over to CBCID but at the instance of the first informant the Government withdrawn the order of transferring the investigation to CBCID; that co-accused Vinay Kumar Tiwari and Ajay Tiwari, with whom applicant does not claim parity, have been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated 16.11.2018 & 27.6.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.42329 of 2018 & 23556 of 2018 respectively, copies produced for perusal; that the applicant has explained his criminal history of single case under Section 302 I.P.C. in para 32 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application in which case he has been acquitted by the Court; that the applicant has surrendered before the Court on 12.7.2018 and is entitled for bail; that even after surrender by the applicant the first informant has got lodged two more F.I.Rs. against the family members of applicant at Case Crime Nos.532 of 2018 & 601 of 2018 in both of which upon investigation final report have been submitted; that the applicant is a law abiding citizen; that the applicant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail; that the applicant is in custody since 12.7.2018.