SUNEET KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for bail on behalf of the accused applicant, Suneet Kumar Sharma who is detained in Case Crime No.177 of 2007, under Sections 302, 307 IPC, Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangsters and Anti-Social(Prevention) Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Faizabad. The first bail application was rejected as not pressed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Allah Raham (since deceased) under his order dated 11.1.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the case. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 30.1.2007 at about 10.15 a.m., Arif, younger son of the first informant Shri Mohd. Wasi had gone to the shop of Raju to purchase chips where an altercation had taken place on the quality of chips and accused Suneet who was also sitting at the shop slept Arif. Arif thereafter returned at the home and when his elder brother Raju came to know about the incident, he went to Raju's shop and asked applicant Suneet the reasons for slapping his brother on which Suneet abused Sonu and Suneet got his gun from his house and when he was loading the gun, Sonu run away but Suneet opened fire at Sonu as a result of which he sustained gun injuries. On hearing the hue and cry, certain other persons reached and in the meantime, Suneet and his father Anoop reached at the terrace of their house and started firing indiscriminately as a result of which Gilani, Khusma, Mohd. Iklahs and Shamshad Ahmad sustained gun shot injuries. On information being given to the Police Control Room, Ganesh Prasad Shukla and other Constable reached reached at the place of the incident and attempted to break and open the door of the house of the person who were making fire whereupon the applicant fired at the police personnels as a result of which constable Sant Ram Yadav and one Ganesh Prasad Shukla sustained gun shot injuries and they were rushed to hospital where Sant Ram Yadav was declared dead. In the incident, Gilani had sustained gun shot injuries who succumbed to the injuries. The report of the said incident was lodged against the applicant Suneet Kumar and his father by Mohd. Wasi on the same day at 11.25 a.m. It is argued on behalf of the applicant regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case and proposed evidence that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and the incident had not occurred as alleged by the prosecution. It was submitted that it was Moharram and an altercation during procession of Moharram has taken place as a result of which firing was done in self-defence and a false case has been cooked against the applicant; That F.I.R. was made ante-time; that the applicant and his father are law abiding citizens and the father of the applicant Shri Anoop Sharma is in active service of the Intelligence Bureau and has been granted bail; that Gilani had died due to septicaemia after 45 days of the incident and Constable Sant Ram had also received injuries by the firing made by unknown persons from the mob; that the applicant is in jail since 30.1.2007 and he was working as Executive Officer in the Johnson India Ltd and in the facts and circumstances of the case, he deserves bail. The bail is, however, opposed by the learned A.G.A. by contending that it is a day light incident wherein two persons lost their life out of which one was police personal Sant Ram Yadav. It was further contended that it is wrong to allege that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case; that the case against Shri Suneet Sharma is not at par with the case of his father Anoop Sharma because applicant is the actual shooter and it was he who had caused gun shot injuries to Sonu, Sant Ram Yadav, Gilani and others. It was further contended that it is not case of right of private defence and accused applicant was an aggressor and when the police reached at the spot and tried to pacify the matter, the fire was opened on police personnels as a result of which one police personnel lost his life and as such the applicant does not deserve bail. I have carefully considered the respective submissions made by the parties alongwith the grounds taken by the applicant in his bail application. It is admitted fact that co-accused Anoop Sharma has been admitted to bail but the case against the applicant, cannot be said to be at par with the case against the co-accused admitted to bail. There are allegations that it was Suneet Sharma who started aggression by opening fire at Sonu. Private defence is not available to an aggressor. In the present case, police personnels have also lost their lives. Right of private defence is also not available against the public servants who are discharging their public functions. Eye witness account of the incident is available. The question of false implication does not arise as there is nothing on record that police has any motive to falsely implicate the applicant on the death of the member of the Force. The reliability of the witness and the defence of the accused as has been put forward by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be determined at this stage. It is settled law that roving inquiry into the pros and cons of the matter is not possible at the stage of disposal of the bail application. There are sufficient material against the applicant to connect him with the incident in question. The defence of accused cannot be considered at this stage. At the stage of disposal of the bail application, detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case, is not required to be undertaken. The broad spectrum of the case is to be seen at this stage apart from the nature and severity of the offence. As discussed above, two persons have lost their lives in the incident and several persons sustained gun shot injuries. It is a day light incident. Having regard to the nature of offence, severity of punishment, nature of supporting evidence and broad spectrum of prosecution case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. The bail is, therefore, refused and the application for bail is rejected, accordingly.