K.C. Bhargava, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for bail by two accused, who have been convicted by Sessions Judge, Moradabad under Sections 302, 149, 307, 449, 148 and 506 (Part II) I.P.C and they have been sentenced variously. This bail application is opposed by Sri M.D. Misra, learned counsel for the complainant. The complainant filed counter affidavit before the Court. Learned counsel for the appellants has staled that he has not to file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed today against the bail application. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has argued that both the appellants were on bail and during the trial they did not misuse the bail. It is a fact that he and co -accused were on bail during the trial. Learned counsel for the appellants stated that both the co -accused have not been assigned any role during commission of the offences. The role of the offence has been assigned to another co -accused, who have already been convicted. Learned counsel for the appellants has stated as the appellants were on bail during trial therefore they should be granted bail in this case. Learned counsel for the complainant has stated that both the appellants did not fire a shot on the deceased but they had only entered into the house of the complainant alongwith the co -accused and murdered two sons of the complainant. He has further argued that a number of cases are pending against the appellants. He has also referred to the paragraph Nos. 2, 29 and 32 of the Judgment in order to show that these accused persons are related to each other. He has further argued that the appellants were on bail and they have misused the bail granted to them earlier. He has also argued that both these accused persons have also been convicted previously and all these accused have murdered one of the witnesses, who was to depose against the accused persons in another case in which the copy of the charge -sheet has been filed alongwith the counter affidavit as annexure 1. Learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the case of State of Maharashtra v. Anand Chintaman Digha : 1991 (Suppl.) ACC 93 (SC) in order to show that a person (sic) in a public speech was not allowed to remain on bail and his bail was refused and he has placed reliance on the case of Gurucharan Singh and others v. State, 1978 (15) ACC 86 (SC). It has been mentioned in both the cases that the appellants ought not have been granted bail and one of the facts which governs the grant of the bail is that if a person who tampers the witnesses and tries to change the history of the case then the bail should not be allowed in order to ensure fair trial of the case. He has also relied on an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Prem and others v. State delivered on 26.5.1990 in order to show that the bail was not allowed to a co -accused who was also on bail during the trial as he was involved previously in a crime case and when he was on bail during trial he committed an offence. After considering all the facts of this case and the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant this Court comes to the conclusion that it is not a fit case in which bail should be allowed. The bail application is therefore rejected.;