- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Applicant Bhaskar Singh has filed this bail application under Section 439 Cr. P. C. praying for his release on bail in crime number 476 of 2005 under Sections 302/307 IPC and 3 (2)V SC/st Act and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, relating to police station Ghosi District Mau.
(2.) THE prosecution allegations against the applicant as culled out from the FIR are that Akhilesh Pandey the elder brother of the informant Brajesh Kumar Pandey accompanied by Ram Bachan, Ganga Ram, Sri Kant Pandey and Ram Dev had gone to Ghosi Block at 3 p. m. on 16-10-2005 where the two siblings accused Bhaskar Singh and Bhushan Singh were present in ambush. When Akhilesh Singh was approaching towards Panchayat Hall Ghosi Block then the two accused Bhaskar Singh (Present Applicant) and Bhushan Singh started firing at him as a result of which Akhilesh Singh sustained injuries. Informant, Ram Bachan and Ganga Ram tried to save the injured but they too received fire-arm injuries. Informant Brajesh Pandey took to his heels to save his life. THE malefactors after committing the crime escaped from the scene of the incident. This shooting was witnessed by Sri Kant Pandey, Ram Dev, Shiv Shankar, Shesh Nath Giri and many others who had collected there. THE incident result in a chaose in the vicinity. Informant Brajesh Pandey rushed the injured persons to the district hospital Mau where his brother Akhilesh Pandey was declared dead and subsequently Ram Bachan Ram also lost his life. Ganga Ram was admitted for his treatment but he too succumbed to the injuries later on. Informant scribed the FIR regarding this incident and after covering a distance of one and half furlong lodged it at police station Ghosi District Azamgargh at 4. 30 p. m. that day itself as crime number 476 of 2005 under Sections 302/307 IPC and 3 (2)V SC/st Act and 7 C. L. Act (Annexure No. 1 ). THE post-mortems on the dead-bodies of the three deceased were performed on 17-10-2005 and their Post-mortem reports (Annexures 2,3 and 4) shows that the deceased were found to have died because of ante-mortem fire-arm injuries. On such factual allegations the applicant has applied for his bail after the same was rejected by the Additional Session's Judge, Court No. 2 Mau vide his order dated 30-5-2006. (Annexure No. 18 ). I have heard Sri Jagdish Singh Sengar Advocate assisted by Sri Ajit Kumar Singh Solanki Advocate in support of this bail application and the learned AGA in opposition. It is submitted by Sri Sengar that the applicant had no motive to commit the crime and he had no reason to participate in the incident. He submitted that the deceased was not a contestant against the applicant and therefore there was no occasion for him to commit the murder of the deceased. The block of the deceased and the applicant are different and hence by annihilating the deceased the applicant will not gain any thing. He further argued that the applicant claimed identification from the witnesses (Annexure No. 5) but the same was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau vide his order dated 16-10-2005. (Annexure No. 6 ). He further contended that under Section 161 Cr. P. C. The informant has stated the same version which had been narrated in the FIR but subsequently when the prosecution found itself into difficulty then through eye-witnesses it changed the manner of assault giving it a U turn by alleging that the fire was opened at Ram Bachan, Ganga Ram and Akhilesh Pandey was shot at by the present applicant as he intervened in the incident while the shooting was on asking the accused to detest from shooting. He also contended that the applicant is a resident of 10 KM away from the place of incident and there was no occasion for him to be present on the spot. He also hankered that the licensed pistol of the applicant was seized and it was got tallied from ballistic expert but the report did not support the prosecution case of shooting from that pistol. He concluding submitted that none of the witnesses were present on the spot and therefore the prosecution has changed the manner of assault to make it's case consistent with the post-mortem report and motive for the crime and therefore the applicant deserves to be released on bail.
(3.) LEARNED AGA contrarily submitted that it a day light incident in which three persons had lost their lives and there is eye-witness account of the said incident. He contended that there was no reason for the informant to falsely implicate the applicant if he was not the real assailant as before this incident neither of them had done any thing against each other. He further contended that the two accused are real brothers and they were opposing the election of one Bhaggu Ram and the applicant was coercing the said Bhaggu Ram to withdraw from the election field. He further argued that there are four eye- witnesses of the incident. They are informant, Sri Kant Pandey, Rama Nand and Shiv Shakar. He further submitted that the deceased Akhilesh Pandey was the Block Pramukh of the same Block and was a supporter of Bhaggu Ram and that is why he had been done to death. He also pointed out that the other two deceased persons Ram Bachan and Ganga Ram were senior Pramukh and Village Pradhan and therefore they were also laid to rest because of the said motive of being supporter of Bhaggu Ram. He contended that the change in the sequence in the manner of assault does not dent the prosecution case even a bit as according to those eye-witnesses who are alleged to have changed the manner of assault it was the applicant who had shot dead Akhilesh Pandey, brother of informant and therefore in essence there is no effect on the prosecution version of the incident. He contended that the post-mortem reports of the three deceased persons are consistent with the eye-witnesses account and therefore the applicant does not deserve to be released on bail. I have considered the contentions raised by both the sides. It is a day light incident in which three persons have been murdered in a most daring incident of shooting at a public place. The applicant is one of the main shooters and there is no reason for his false implication. This incident had taken place to tarnish the very edifice of our democratic system of adult franchise, which is the very basis of our polity. To repose the faith of the citizens in the elected democracy such type of incident as the present one had to be obliterated from the political arena of country with out complacency and trifling. There is no place for political murders in our country's democracy. There is no reason to grant bail to the applicant. His bail prayer is declined and this bail application is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and make and endeavour to conclude it if possible within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order before it. Application rejected. .;