- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Praneet Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A for the State. By this revision application, the revisionists have chllenged the order dated 3.7.2012 passed by Additional District and Session Judge, IV Baghpat, District Baghpat, in S.T. No.433 of 2011, whereby, in exercise of power under section 319 Cr.P.C, the revisionists have been added as accused so as to face trial along with the other accused persons, under sections 307, 452, 504 and 506 I.P.C. I have perused the order dated 3. 7.2012 and the material available on record.
(2.) A perusal of the record reveals that a First Information Report was registered on 25.10.2010 as Case Crime No.517 of 2010, under Sections 452,307,308,323, 504 and 506 I.P.C at the instance of the Ranveer Singh ( opposite Party no.2 herein), against four persons namely, Deepak, Vinod, Rajiv and Sonu. The police carried out the investigation and laid charge sheet only against Deepak and Vinod. Thereafter, the Court took cognizance and proceeded with the trial. During the course of trial, the statement of the victim Km. Pushpa was recorded as P.W-2, who was also subjected to cross examination. Km. Pushpa was injured in the incident. In her testimony before the Court, she clearly disclosed the involvement of Rajiv and Sonu in the incident. Their complicity was also disclosed in the First Information Report. Accordingly, the court below relying on the testimony recorded during trial, in exercise of its power under section 319 Cr.P.C, summoned the revisionists to face trial along with other accused person. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present revision application has been filed. The contention of the counsel for the revisionists is that the court below, in specific words, has not recorded a satisfaction that the evidence led before it was reasonably sufficient to record conviction. Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the revisionists and having perused the record, I am of the view that once the complicity of the revisionists was disclosed in the First Information Report and was also affirmed by the testimony of a person injured in the incident, it cannot be said that the testimony, if left un-rebutted, would not reasonably lead to conviction. Accordingly, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the court below.
(3.) AT this stage, the learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that an offence punishable under section 307 I.P.C is not made out inasmuch as, admittedly, the gun shot missed its target and there is no injury of any gun shot. He, therefore, contended that some protection may be given to the revisionists by way of direction for consideration of their bail application. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to direct the court below that in case the revisionists appear before the court concerned and apply for bail, within a period of 15 days from today, their bail application shall be considered expeditiously, in accordance with law. Subject to the observation made above, the revision application is dismissed.;