- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant. The accused-applicant Pravin Kumar Misra @ Golden, who is involved and detained in Case Crime No. 672 of 2009, under Sections 302,307, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Mallawan, District Hardoi and is facing Sessions trial No. 172 of 2010, has moved this bail application. The prosecution case as borne out from the FIR, in brief, is that on17.10.2009 at 8.30 P.M., the complainant-Anoop Kumar Mishra, son of late Jagdish Prasad Mishra, resident of village Naya Gaon, Police Station Mallawan, District Hardoi was going to Natwa Baba for offering their prayer. It was occasion of Deepawali. Sri Awadhesh Narayan Mishra, real uncle of the complainant and Ankur Mishra, his cousin brother were withhim on the tractor. When they reached near Natwa Baba they stopped their tractor to get down from the tractor. Sri Awadhesh Narain Misra and Ankur Misra got down from the tractor and proceeded towards Natwa Baba. In the meantime, Chandra Shekhar alias Guddu and Golden, sons of Om Prakash Mishra who were waiting for them hidden in the near by bush suddenly came out from bush and surrounded them. They were armed with fire arms.Chandra Shekhar opened fire on Ankur Mishra which resulted in his instantaneous death. The incident was seen by the complainant in the light of tractor. When the complainant and his uncle raised alarm, both the accused opened fire on them too fortunately, they did not sustain any injury.Accused thereafter left the place of occurrence hurling their firearm in the air. The complainant had lodged the written report of the occurrence on the same day at 22.15 hours at Police Station Mallawan, District Hardoi. On the basis of written report of the complainant, the police of Police Station Mallawan, District Hardoi registered a case under Sections 302, 307, 506I.P.C. against the accused for investigation.
(2.) The submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that as perversion of the FIR, the main role of firing on the deceased has been assigned to co-accused Chandra Shekhar alias Guddu while no role of firing has been assigned on the deceased to the present accused-applicant. The complainant in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. too has not assigned the role of firing on the deceased to the present accused applicant.From a perusal of copy of the post-mortem examination report of the deceased, it appears that the deceased had sustained single fire arm injury.The participation of the accused applicant, prima facie, appears to be doubtful. He, therefore, deserves to be released on bail. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application.
(3.) Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the role of firing has been assigned to the present accused applicant in the FIR as well as in the statement of complainant. The fire opened by the accused did not hit to any one. Learned counsel submits that the allegations of the FIR are not the only criteria to grant bail to the accused; rather nature of offence,complicity of accused, possibility of tempering the witnesses as well as the conduct of the accused will be considered for granting the bail to him. Undisputedly, this is a case of heinous nature of crime. The accused applicant belongs to a criminal family. The father of the accused applicant had been accused in committing murder of real uncle of the complainant and faced trial under Section 302 I.P.C. in Sitapur. He was held the guilty by the trial court and convicted for life imprisonment. The accused has got criminal history of three cases. First case relates to under Section 302 I.P.C.The occurrence had taken place in Sitapur. In this case, although the accused has been acquitted but his criminal history is there. Second criminal case was registered against him under Section 307 I.P.C. in district Hardoi in which the Investigating Officer after investigation of the case submitted charge sheet under Section 324 I.P.C. This case is still pending against him. Third case is the present case. In this way, the accused applicant has got criminal background. He is trying to win-over the prosecution witnesses. The trial has commenced. The prosecution has examined the complainant Anoop Kumar Mishra as PW-1 whose cross examination was deferred as the accused sought adjournments. He is not cooperating with the trial. Keeping in view the conduct of the accused,nature of offence as well as the complicity of accused-applicant, he does not deserve to be released on bail.;