- (1.) SHIV Shanker, J. This case was initiated upon a show-cause notice issued in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5756 of 2001, Mohan Lal v. State of U. P. , by this Court against the contemnor Nepal Singh son of Ram Charan.
(2.) BRIEF facts, arising out of this case, are that Chhotey Lal son of Jawahar Lal lodged an F. I. R. on 13-2- 1998 at 11. 25 a. m. , at Police Station Bisharatganj, district Bareilly wherein it was stated that his younger brother Net Ram has kept the wife of Har Prasad, who was murdered by his brother Mohan Lal one year ago of the present occurrence. Therefore, due to keeping the wife of Har Prasad, Mohan Lal harboured ill-will. On 12-12-1998, at about 7. 30 p. m. , Mohan Lal accused reached near Net Ram, who was warming under a tree at his house alongwith companion, his nephew Prem Pal and others. Mohan Lal and his companion surrounded Net Ram who stood and run away towards his house where Mohan Lal fired two shots upon Net Ram in his court-yard and his companions attacked him with sword. Net Ram consequently died on the spot. Whereafter Smt. Surajmukhi, wife of Net Ram deceased, was taken towards the jungle of the village. Thereafter the case under Sections 302/366 IPC, was registered against the accused. During the course of investigation, the name of accused Bhagwan Das was also come into light on the basis of the criminal conspiracy. The name of Nanhey was disclosed by the prosecution witnesses in this occurrence. Later on the bail application of Nanhey son of Lakhan was allowed by the Sessions Judge granting bail to him. Thereafter bail application was moved by Mohan Lal in the sessions Court Bareilly on the ground of parity but the same was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Bareilly finding no case of parity. Thereafter bail application of Mohan Lal was moved before this Court wherein all the facts are mentioned in the bail application. Copy of the F. I. R. was also annexed and the affidavit was sworn by contemnor Nepal Singh by filling his affidavit. At the time of hearing the argument in the bail application in this Court, learned AGA has pointed out that the copy of F. I. R. (Annexure-1) filed on behalf of accused in support of the bail application is fabricated and incomplete copy of the F. I. R. There is no clear averment that Mohan Lal accused made two fires in the court-yard of the house of deceased which portion of the F. I. R. has been left out deliberately in the copy of F. I. R. (Annexure-1 ). Thereafter the following order was passed by this Court after rejecting the bail application of Mohan Lal accused: "let a notice be issued against him fixing 13-4-2001 to show-cause why he be not punished for filing false affidavit before the Court. List on 13-4-2001 as part-heard before this Court. Office is further directed to keep the record of Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5756 of 2001 in a sealed cover. "
(3.) THE objection alongwith the affidavit of contemnor was filed werein it was stated that he was Pairokar on behalf of accused Mohan Lal. He contacted the local Counsel Sri Raj Kumar Verma, Advocate, Bareilly was doing the necessary Pairvi of the case. And some time in the month of January, 2001, gave him a sum of Rs. 500/-for obtaining copy of the F. I. R. , copy of the post-mortem report of deceased besides other evidence collected by he Investigating Officer in connection with said criminal case, for the purpose of preparing/moving bail application on behalf of said Mohan Lal. Sri Raj Kumar Verma, Advocate Bareilly obtained all the relevant papers in connection with the case including the copy of the F. I. R. in question dated 13-12-98 and moved a bail application on behalf of Mohan Lal, accused in the Court of Magistrate which was rejected then and before the Sessions Judge, Bareilly who rejected the same on 23-2-2001.;