- (1.) R. C. Deepak, J. Heard Sri Ravindra Sharma, learned Counsel for the applicant-accused learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
(2.) THE first bail application having been dismissed in default, the applicant-accused has moved this second bail application for being released on bail in case crime No. 34 of 2005 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act pertaining to Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad. A perusal of the record would show that an incident/occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 25- 1-2005 at 3. 00 p. m. Three persons named Raju Pal, Sandeep Singh and Devi Lal Pal were murdered, that Smt. Rukhsana, Om Prakash Pal and Saif alias Saifullah also sustained fire-arm injuries therein, that the First Information Report was lodged by Smt. Pooja Pal, the wife of Raju Pal, one of the deceased at the police station Dhoomanganj in connection with said occurrence, that the informant Smt. Pooja Pal is not an eye-witness, that Ateeq Ahmad and Ashraf were named as assailants in the FIR, that the name of the applicant-accused does not find place in the First Information Report, that one Umesh Pal disclosed the name of the applicant-accused as one of the accused for the first time in his statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , that Umesh Pal is not an eye-witness of the occurrence, that the prosecution has examined Saif @ Saifullah, Smt. Rukhsana, Om Prakash Pal, Mohd. Sadiq, Nand Kishore and Amar Nath as witnesses, that none of the witnesses examined has said even a word against the applicant-accused, that all the accused who are named in the First Information Report have been enlarged on bail and that the proceeding of the above case crime S. T. No. 24 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120- B IPC and Section 7 of Criminal Amendment Act has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 4-4-2006 which runs as under : "one week's time is granted to file further affidavit in the matter, two weeks time thereafter is granted to file reply. Until further orders, further proceedings in the trial Court shall remain stayed". Learned Counsel for the applicant-accused has vehemently argued that the applicant-accused has falsely been implicated for political reasons, that he has no concern or connection with the occurrence in question, that his case stands on much better footing than that of all the other co-accused including Ashraf and Ateeq Ahmad who have already been enlarged on bail and that he has incidentally argued that the medical report does not support the prosecution case and therefore, the bail application be allowed.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State has on the other hand advanced his argument, but there is nothing substantial therein to ignore and over-look the fact that the name of the applicant-accused does not find place in the First Information Report, that his name has been disclosed for the first time by Umesh Pal who is not an eye-witness. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case I arrive at the conclusion that this application be allowed.;