G.P.Mathur - (1.) THIS is an application on behalf of Stai Munna Singh who is in custody in respect of Case Crime No. 795 of J 990 under sections 147/148/149/302/34 IPC pertaining to Police Station Kotwali Jaunpur.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that at about 330 P.M. on 17-5-1989, the applicant Rai Munna Singh alongwith two others fired upon Palakdhari. Palafcdhari received injuries and he lodged a first information report on 17-5-1989 at about 4.15 P.M. at P. S. Baksha and a case was registered at Crime No. 141 of 1989. Palakdhari was medically examined at about 5.10 P.M. in the district Hospital, Jaunpur on 17-5-1989 and a fire arm wound was found on his body. He was admitted in the district Hospital for the treatment. It appears that the applicant was granted bail in this case Crime No. 141 of 1989. THE case of the prosecution further is that on 8-8- 1990, Palakdhari had come to the court in connection with a case. At about 4. 00 P.M., he went to Budlapur Padav to catch the Bus. At about 430 P.M., the applicant Rai Munna Singh sitting on a Motor Cycle and some other co- accused sitting on Scooter and Maruti Car came there. THE applicant Rai Munna Singh, co-accused Vinod Singh and Virendra Pratap Singh sorrounded the deceased Palakdhari and instigated Harendra Pratap Singh to kill him. THEreafter, Harendra Pratap Singh fired twice from his Revolver causing injuries to Palakdhari, who died on the spot. Tne First Information Report was lodged by Dharmendra Pratap Singh at 530 P.M. at P. S. Kotwali district iaunpur and a case was registered under Crime No. 795 of 1990. I have heard Sri Virendra Saran and Shri Jagdish Singh Sengar at a length and Sri V. K. Shukla on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that in the earlier case under section 307 IPC, three persons were alleged to have fired upon Palakdhari, but he sustained only one fire arm wound which shows that the applicant was falsely implicated in the said case. It is true that three persons were assigned the role of firing upon Palakdhari, but at the time of incident, he was going on a Motor Cycle. It is, therefore, quite possible that shot fired by two accused did not hit him. It cannot be said that the applicant was falsely implicated in the case under section 307 IPC merely on the ground that Palakdhari sustained only one injury. The learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant had been falsely implicated in the present case under section 302 PC and at any rate only the role of instigated is assigned to him and, therefore, he may be released on bail. The perusal of the first information report shows that the applicant Rai Munna Singh and three other co-accused sorrounded the deceased and it was on his instigation that Harendra Pratap Singh fired twice from his Revolver. In case, the informant wanted to falsely implicate some persons, he could have easily assigned the role of firing to two accused. However, the informant has assigned specific role of causing injuries to only one accused namely Harendra Pratap Singh. It cannot, therefore, be said that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.
(3.) THE applicant was granted bail in case Crime No. 141 of 1989 under section 307 IPC. After he was granted bail, he has committed the present crime. THE applicant has thus mis-used the privilege of bail granted to him. Secondly, Palakdhari injured was the most important prosecution witness in case Crime No. 141 of 1989. By committing the murder of Palakdhari, the applicant has succeeded in eliminating the most important prosecution witness. Thus, the applicant has tampered with the prosecution evidence and has tampered with the progress of a fair trial. Looking to the conduct of the applicant, the possibility cannot be ruled out that in case he is released on bail in the present case he may try to eliminate some other prosecution witnesses. THE applicant is, therefore, not entitled to the discretion of being released on bail. It has also contended that Santosh Pandey and Anil Singh have been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge and the case of the applicant is similar to them. Firstly, Anil Singh and Santosh Pandey were not accused in case Crime No. 141 of 1989 under section 307 IPC. Secondly, these two accused are not alleged to have surrounded the deceased nor they are alleged to have instigated Harendra Pratap Singh to kill the deceased. The applicant is assigned specific role of surrounding the deceased and instigating Harendra Pratap Singh to kill the deceased. Therefore, the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the case of Anil Singh and Santosh Pandey.;