B.N. Shukla, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri V.P. Srivastava and Sri Satish Trivedi learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, Sri SFA Naqvi, S.K. Singh, S.K. Shukla, Saurabh Gour, V.S. Misra learned Counsel for the complainant and Sri Mewa Lal Shukla, learned AGA for the State.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that there was no motive to commit murder and it appears impossible and unnatural that the applicant will shoot without rhyme and reason; that in the FIR name of the deceased and the injured have not been disclosed and in FIR the applicant is sole accused and the FIR is concentrating at the accused applicant and why the applicant will fire when there was no provocation as per FIR; that the complainant always involved in ante social activities as is shown in supplementary affidavit dated 27.10.2009 pages 18 and 19; that the document shows that Abdul Rehman (the deceased) was admitted at injured state in District Hospital at 2:45pm and he had not died and when he was referred to B.H.U. hospital then the doctor declared him brought dead but record shows that his body was found in mortuary at Azamgarh at 6:45pm; inquest report shows that the FIR was not in existence till then and informant's name is missing therein upto 6:05pm, that the injured Mohd Saheed was examined at C.H.C. Phoolpur at 2:50pm and was brought by one Mauzam; injured Mohd Zaheed was examined at C.H.C. Phoolpur at 3:00 pm and injured Mohd. Mushtaq at 3:10 pm and brought by self whereas it is prosecution case that the injured were examined at District Hospital at 7:10pm brought by Abdul Rehman stranger and genesis of the case is concealed by the prosecution. It is further contended that Saheb, Jhinak and Radhey Shyam were examined at C.H.C. Phoolpur at 8:30 pm, 6:30pm and 3:30pm respectively brought by self and how these persons were medical examined there is no whisper by the prosecution; that nature of the injury of the deceased shows sufficient dispersal which could by country made pistol and not by casual gun and there is sufficient improvement in case; that the medical evidence is inconsistent with the FIR. Learned AGA has contended that no injury has been found on the backside and the fire was shot by regular gun having pellet injuries, that the applicant has criminal history of 37 cases and the applicant and his brother Umakant are involved in several murder cases and the applicant has criminal history from year 1977, that in the FIR it is not mentioned how many fires were shot at and in inquest report there is mention of FIR in annexure; that presence of injured witnesses could not be doubted and the FIR is prompt; that it is broad day light murder and the applicant is named in FIR, the deceased had received fire arm injuries and the applicant had been MLA and MP several times and still he is sitting MP but he is breaking law and order.
(3.) LEARNED private Counsel from the side of complainant has contended that there was no occasion to falsely implicated the applicant and the complainant does not belongs to any political party; that conduct of the applicant shows that he was declared as an absconder in year 1987 and his case was separated whereas case against other accused persons was decided and appeal is now pending and after release the applicant had committed murder of 4 persons and bail cancellation application is still pending, that the trial is pending and 2 prosecution witnesses have already been examined and the applicant is causing delay in proceedings. Lastly it is contended that Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 22519 of 2009 is still pending and as per ruling of the Apex Court the applicant would not be entitled for bail.;