- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Learned Counsel for the applicants has filed a supplementary affidavit; the same is taken on record.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A. G. A. In this case learned A. G. A. has not received instructions. The notice of this bail application was given on 3-8-2006. This bail application is being considered by this Court today on 21-9-2006. It is more than 40 days. The A. G. A. has not received the instructions. It seems that the Investigation Officer in this State are not interested in sending instructions. It seems to me that the I. Os. are facilitating the release of accused on bail because they do not send instructions in time and delays it for months. This situation is really grave and it must be remedied immediately. This Court has been passing orders for getting instructions within a period of ten days as is provided in the Rules of this Court. The applicants cannot be incarnated into jail because the A. G. A. has not received instruction on the bail application.
(3.) COMING to the merits of this case the applicant seeks bail in crime number 564 of 2006 under Section 3 (1) U. P. Gangaster's Act P. S. Kopaganj District Mau. It is submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that the applicants have been implicated falsely in the present case on the basis of a single incident shown in the Gang chart. The said case was a case of personal enemity and the applicants have been granted bail by this Court as well as by Session's Judge in the aforesaid case. Through the supplementary affidavits the applicants have filed the bail granting order of Prashant Rai and Akhilesh Rai, applicants, in the aforesaid crime number 497 of 2006 under Sections 147/148/149/307ipc. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act vide bail application No. 10919 of 2006 by Hon'ble R. N. Misra J. Through another supplementary affidavit the Counsel for the applicants has filed bail granting order of Indu Sneknar Rai, applicant, by the Session's Judge on 8-9-2006. While granting bail to Indu Shekhar Rai, applicant. , the Session's Judge has observed that the applicant has a cross version also which is pending before revisional Court to get it registered and the case of the Indu Shekhar Rai is identical to other co-accused Manish Rai and Anil Rai. It was also observed that informant had not received any injury though he was the main target. The weapon wielded by the two accused Manish Rai and Anil Rai has also not been mentioned. But for a single grievous injury sustained by the injured Pankaj which has been attributed to co accused Manoj rest all the injured from the prosecution side sustained simple injuries which were not dangerous to life. In the FIR only Manoj Rai has been attributed the main role of causing grievous injury to injured Pankaj. Thus it is contended that there is no evident that there was a 'gang' or that the applicants are a member of a 'gang'. He submitted that on the facts alleged neither there was a 'gang' nor the Gangster's Act is applicable in the present case. He also contended that the applicants are not a previous convict and but for the aforesaid case there is no other case against the applicants. He also contended that the applicants will not abscond nor tamper with prosecution witnesses and they are ready to furnish adequate security for their release. He also submitted that the applicants are in jail since May, 2006.;