- (1.) Heard Sri Kamal Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. on behalf of State.
(2.) This second bail application on behalf of applicant- Shiv Mohan Padey @ Bablu has been nominated to this Court by the order of Hon. The Chief Justice dated 10.2.2015. First bail application of applicant in Case Crime No. 237 of 2010 under Sections 302, 307, 427, 429, 120-B I.P.C., Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 2/3(1) of the U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to Gangsters Act), P.S. Kotwali, District Allahabad was rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court after meticulous examination of available material vide order dated 11.10.2011. The Court held thus:- "While granting bail prima facie satisfaction is required that in view of the material available the applicant appears to be not guilty though it is not stage for recording the finding that applicant is guilty or not because that has to be recorded by the trial court after scrutiny of the evidence minutely. Though truthfulness of the statement has to be examined by the trial court regarding the reliability of the witnesses. However, if the Statement is correct then, under which circumstances co-accused Rajesh Piolet was introduced as Bhagwan Das Shukla @ Shukla Ji, creates suspicion against the accused persons including the applicant before whom there was conversation for providing a room on rent to him. However for the purpose of consideration of grant of bail such satisfaction is required in view of aforesaid provisions. Further, satisfaction is required that considering the nature, gravity of offence and material available against the applicant, whether if released on bail there would be chance of repetition of such activities or there would be a chances of tampering with the evidence or there would be threat to life and liberty of witnesses and effect of the activity in the society. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, nature and gravity of offence, without observation on merit, which are required to be considered by the trial court, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, at this stage, it is not a fit case for bail. Accordingly, present bail application is hereby rejected."
(3.) Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged.;