- (1.) Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
(2.) Heard Mr. U. N. Sharma , Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. S. K. Misra and Mr. R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri M. L. Shukla, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely roped in on the basis of a solitary case in which the investigation was pending and no report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the police when the provisions of Gangster Act was invoked. It is further submitted that the applicant has already been granted bail by this court in the said Case Crime No. 513 of 2010, under Sections 395, 397, 307, 364, 323, 504, 506, 325, 427, 34 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh on 25.2.2011 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application no. 1256 of 2011 by a detailed order which, interalia, runs as under: "Through a detailed FIR the prosecution has come forward to make certain criminal allegations against the applicant. It seems that during the course of campaigning by arch rival parties of the State some scuffle took place before the Kotwali, Kunda. It is also alleged that in front of the Kotwali, Kunda indiscriminate firing has taken place and thereafter certain persons belonging to the informant party were abducted by the applicant and others. It is not disputed that ample number of police personnel were present on the spot. How the incident as alleged by the prosecution could take place in presence of the police personnel and why the police failed to take any action in time to prevent the aforesaid incident. It is common knowledge that when there is campaigning and two parties are face to face in the campaigning often certain scuffle or sloganeering takes place and in such circumstances there is melee on the spot. FIR has been lodged at the behest of the person belonging to party, which is fully supported by the administration. The applicant happens to be the person belonging to the opposition party and it appears that certain facts have been exaggerated to give colour to the incident as alleged in the FIR. The abductees have returned back to their home although it is alleged that they were abducted by the applicant and others. Since no person is missing and neither any person has died and there is a cross version by the other side, it has to be decided during the course of trial as to who is the aggressor and who's version is correct after the evidence is adduced before the trial court. At this stage, the prosecution case in the facts and circumstances of the case is doubtful as many things stated in the FIR after investigation have been found to be incorrect. The injuries received by the prosecution side are also minor in nature. In these circumstances, the prosecution case does not appear to be as correct as set up in the FIR and a cloud of doubt hangs upon the prosecution case. How the abductees were abducted by these persons in presence of the police is also not understandable. There is no allegation that the police persons were out numbered. The story of snatching the weapons also does not stand to reason as it was not possible in presence of the police when the incident has taken place in front of Kotwali Kunda.";