SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner prays for cancellation of bail granted to opposite parties under S.439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Sessions Judge of Vaishali at Hajipur in Cr. Misc. Nos. 224/89, 274/89 by an order dated 2-5-89 in Jurawanpur P.S. Case No. 9 dated 14-3-89 bearing G. R. Case No. 458/89 under, Ss.147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 447, 337, 307 and 302 of the Penal Code and under S.27 of the Arms Act for the murder of Upendra Singh, cousin of the informant.

(2.) Mr. Rash Bihari Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of learned Sessions Judge granting ball to the opposite parties on 2-5-89 clearly shows that the learned Judge found that according to the first information report Damodar Singh and Bhulu alias Bishwa Nath Singh had fired at the deceased. The other accused persons had also resorted to firing. A large number of pellet injuries were found in the post-mortem examination. Learned Sessions Judge has stated that in the first information report two persons had been specifically named to have fired gunshots causing injuries to the deceased but in course of investigation at least "half of a dozen of the accused have been alleged specifically inflicted injuries on the specific part of the body."

(3.) Mr. Rash Bihari Singh further submitted that the opposite parties are threatening the witnesses and trying to tamper with the evidence. They have also threatened that three brothers of the informant would be killed. A Sanha bearing No. 128 dated 9-5-89 was lodged with Jurawanpur police station of Vaishali district for proper action against the opposite parties. According to Mr. Singh, the first information report clearly says that Damodar Singh and Bhulu alias Bishwanath Singh had given fatal gun shots on the deceased which is proved by the post-mortem report also, though it is said that others also had fired at the deceased. It was wrong on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to say that it was difficult to notice and say with precision as to which shot struck the deceased. According to him, it was an error of fact and the bail was wrongly granted to the opposite parties including these two persons specifically.