Mahabir vs State of U.P.

S. K. Agarwal, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, learned Counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that from the own showing of the informant the F.I.R. does not appear to be a honett document. It contains a coloured version. The accused persons initially are shown to have exercised utmost restraint. They allowed the complainant party to go scotfree with solitary buttend injury. They did not open any fire while the complainant party was retreating to their house and lodged themselves in safe custody therein. They had not made any attempt to break open their doors. They were armed to the teeth. Later on the complainant party had rushed to the house of a sympathiser. It is further alleged that the accused persons went up stairs and started hurling filthy abuses. Bhagwan Singh went up stairs and was fired upon by the applicant. The snag between the initial part and the later is discernible without any complexity. Those persons who had acted with such a high degree of restraint till the applicant is said to have fired upon Bhagwan Singh suddenly will not turn insane. It clearly shows that some provocation was given by the prosecution side. The applicant is in jail since late 1999.

In the circumstances, without adverting to the merits of these contentions any further I find it a fit case for bail. Let, therefore, the applicant, involved in case Crime No. 64 of 1999 under Sections 302/323/504 I.P.C., R S. Vrindaban, District Mathura, be enlagcd on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

The applicant is, however, directed not to indulge in any abuse of the bail, inasmuch as he will not make any attempt to tamper the evidence in any manner or extend any threat to any of the prosecution witnesses, Sri Rajul Bhargava, learned Counsel for the complainant, urges that these contentions are very much in the nature of a finding, the Trial Judge is advised not to be guided by any one of the contentions since I have refrained purposely from returning any finding on the contentions.