- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA and perused the record. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that according to the FIR, the applicant had a Sabbal (a sharp edged weapon) but the deceased did not sustain any injury caused by any sharp edged weapon and all the injuries were contusion, which were caused by some blunt object, therefore, the FIR is incorrect. It was next submitted that the accused side, namely, the applicant and co-accused Raj Kumar had also sustained injuries. The occurrence in question took place on account of a dispute in regard to rights of work in the mine.
(2.) The learned counsel for the applicant lastly submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to enmity and there is no reasonable ground to believe that the applicant has committed the alleged offences. The learned AGA opposed the bail, but could not point out anything otherwise. In my opinion, prima facie, the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant have substance, therefore, it is just and expedient to exercise the discretion in favour of the applicant. Moreso, there does not appear to be any reasonable ground to believe that the applicant will tamper with the witnesses or abscond, if released on bail.
(3.) Keeping in view the nature of the offences, evidence, complicity of the applicant, the severity of the punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Let the applicant Shiv Babu Pasi involved in Case Crime No. 84 of 2010, under Sections 504,304 and 506 IPC, P.S. Bara, District Allahabad be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. Bail Granted.;