- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. The applicant Shyam Narain Pandey has applied for bail in crime number 65 of 2006 under Sections 147/148/149/504/506/302/ 120-B IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act Police Station Atraulia District Azamgarh.
(2.) THE prosecution case against the applicant in a thumb nail sketch is that while sitting in Bolero jeep he alongwith co-accused Lakshami Narain Pandey instigated the sons of Lakshami Narain Pandey, to commit the murder of Rajendra Prasad Tripathi, father of informant Atul Tripathi, on 28-2-2006 at 6 p. m. at Kesari Chauraha, Atraulia District Azamgarh and on their instigation the sons of Lakshami Narain Pandey shot dead Rajendra Prasad Tripathi. THE motive for the said murder is alleged to be the school management rivalry regarding which many litigations were pending some in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have heard Sri Satish Trivedi learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rajiv Misra Advocate on behalf of applicant and Sri Viresh Misra learned Senior Counsel on behalf of informant and the learned AGA on behalf of State. Sri Trivedi, learned senior Counsel submitted that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case due to management rivalry. He submitted that the applicant is litigating on the civil side for redressal of his grievance and before the present incident there is nothing against him that he took the law in his own hand. He further contended that only the role of instigation has been assigned to the applicant and he has not been alleged to be armed with any weapon. He further submitted that the applicant is a resident of District Ballia and for him to be present on the spot at the time of the incident is highly improbable. He further contended that there is nothing in the case diary to show that the applicant knew about the movement of the deceased so as to be present at the time and place of the incident. He further submitted that the allegation of two people instigating from inside the Bolero Jeep is absurd. He further contended that the applicant was suspended in the year 2003 and since then he had not been attending the school and was residing at Ballia and he has been taking recourse to law and never took law in his own hand and has no criminal history at all. He further pointed out that in the counter-affidavit itself it has been brought out that the applicant was legally appointed Principal (Annexure No. CA-4 ). He further argued that vide Annexure CA-1, which is a letter written by the deceased himself he has expressed danger at the hands of co-accused persons and had not named the applicant at all nor expressed any danger from him. He further submitted that the applicant is not likely to abscond nor tamper with prosecution witnesses and is ready to co-operate with the trial.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the informant as well as learned AGA contrarily submitted that it is a case of organised crime in day light and the applicant had also the motive to participate in the incident and his involvement in the crime is cemented by eye-witness account. They further argued that because the deceased has returned Rs. 10 lakhs of "sansad Nidhi" to the State Government, therefore, he has been done to death by the Manager and his sons in association with the applicant. They also pointed out some orders passed on the civil side by this Court in the cases between the parties. They also submitted that the accused are not allowing the case to be committed to the Court of Session's on one pretext or another and the Management has suspended those school employees who are witness in the case. They concluded by submitting that the applicant does not deserve bail. I have given my anxious consideration on rival contentions raised at the bar by the rival sides. It is not disputed that only the role of instigation has been assigned to the applicant and he is not alleged to be armed with any weapon. It is also not disputed that the applicant was suspended two years prior and since then he had been residing at Ballia. It is also not disputed that the applicant does not have any criminal history nor he is wanted in any other case. It is also not disputed that the applicant was litigating on civil side for redressal of his grievances and before the present incident he had not done anything against the deceased. Since the case of the applicant is different from all other co-accused persons who are father and sons and to whom there is ample motive to commit the murder for taking over the management of the institution and who have played active role in the incident and their presence on the spot cannot be doubted that I consider it appropriate to grant bail to the present applicant during the pendency of the case in Court below on the following conditions: (1) That the applicant will furnish a personal bond and two solvent sureties each to a tune of Rs. 1 lakh to the satisfaction of GM Azamgarh and one of the two sureties will be his near relative. (2) That the applicant will report to the police station Haldi, Ballia every fortnight at a time and date to be fixed by officer-in-charge of the said police station. (3) That the applicant will not leave District Ballia without the prior permission of GM Ballia and intimation to the said police station Haldi District Ballia. (4) That the applicant will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and will co-operate with the trial and will not seek any uncalled for adjournment. (5) That the applicant will not visit school Maruti Inter College, Adilpur, Atraulia till the disposal of the Session's Trial in the Court below.;