VIJAY KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICATION for taking supplementary affidavit on record, is allowed. Supplementary affidavit is taken on record. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused record. The applicant is involved in Case Crime No.114 of 2008, under Sections 336, 323, 504, 506, 308, 304 I.P.C., Police Station Baundi, District Bahraich. It is submitted that there are cross cases/versions and both the factions got a non-cognizable report registered. From the side of the applicant there are said to be three injured persons whose injury reports have also been brought on record. The deceased in this case does not belong to either of the factions. He happens to be merely an intervener. Learned counsel for the applicant also draws the attention of the Court towards the statement of three witnesses namely Hari Narayan Pandy, Tej Shanker Chaubey and Ram Kumar Mishra under Section 161 Cr.P.C. saying that the deceased suffered injuries on account of some brick bats which were being thrown from the roof of the complainant himself. Obviously there is no specific allegation of causing injury to the deceased against the applicant. Co-accused Fere Lal Pandey, has already been enlarged on bail though mainly on the ground of his old age and infirmity. Similarly another co-accused Pawan Kumar has already been enlarged on bail by this Court's order dated 10.04.2009 (Annexure SA-1) on the ground that the injuries sustained by the deceased have been found to be simple in nature. He is said to be in jail from 01.11.2008. However, the bail is opposed by learned A.G.A. The points pertaining to nature of accusation, danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail, character, behaviour and position of the accused, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses, prima facie satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and without entering into the merits of the case and particularly having regard to the ground of parity, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant (Vijay Kumar Pandey) be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/court concerned.