NARESH KUMAR Vs. SATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. and perused the record. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the deceased had sustained only two gun shot wounds of entry where as three persons, namely, the applicants Naresh Kumar and Rajeev Kumar and non-applicant Sonu are alleged to have made indiscriminate firing on the deceased. If all the said three persons assaulted the deceased with their respective fire arms, the deceased would have sustained more than two fire arm injuries. It is not clear which of the accused caused the fatal injuries to the deceased. A litigation between the complainant and the accused was already going on since long and the matter was pending before this Court and as such there was no immediate motive for the applicants and other accused to commit the murder of the deceased. The applicants have been falsely implicated due to enmity. The learned AGA, on the other hand, submitted that it is a broad day light murder and the FIR was promptly lodged within one hour of the occurrence. Both the applicants are named in the FIR and played the main role of causing the fatal fire arm injuries to the deceased. If the deceased sustained only two fire arm wounds of entry, it cannot be contended that involvement of third accused in the occurrence was not correct. One pistol of .15 bore is alleged to have been recovered at the instance of the applicant no.2 Rajeev Kumar. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, seriousness of the crime, availability of adequate evidence against the applicants and their main roles, I do not consider it proper to release the applicants on bail. The bail application is therefore, rejected.