Ravindra Singh. - (1.) -Heard Sri S.P.S. Raghav, senior advocate assisted by Sri Ghanshyam Joshi and Sri Anil Raghav learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. and Sri Satish Trivedi, senior advocate, assisted by Sri Pankaj Yadav and Sri G. K. Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant.
(2.) THIS is the second bail application moved by applicant Omkar with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case Crime No. 238 of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 323 and 302, I.P.C., P. S. Kundarki, district Moradabad. Criminal Misc. First Bail Application No. 16525 of 2006, has been rejected by this Court on 4.9.2006 after considering the merits of the case. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that in the present case co-accused Visesh has been released on bail by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J., in Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 26451 of 2006, whereas his first bail application was rejected by his Lordship on 27.7.2006. According to the F.I.R. version the co-accused Visesh has caused injury on the person of the deceased by using Kassi blow, the applicant has caused injury by using tabal blow and the co-accused Ompal caused injury by using knife blow, in the same incident, the injured Malke Singh, Satyavir Singh, Kulwant Singh and first informant Vijendra Singh also sustained injures. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased has sustained six injuries in which injury No. 1 was abrasion in front of nose, injury No. 2 was incised wound on palmer aspect on left hand, injury No. 3 was contusion on back of the left shoulder, injury No. 4 was stabbed wound, injury No. 5 was a contusion on back of left abdomen, injury No. 6 was contusion. At the most it can be said that injury No. 2 was caused by the applicant which was simple in nature and it was on non-vital part of the body. It was not fatal and no other injury caused by tabal was found on the person of the deceased. Whereas the allegation in respect of co-accused Visesh has been made by P.W. 1 that a kassi was used from its blunt side. The deceased had sustained injuries caused by hard and blunt object also and injured persons have also sustained injuries caused by hard and blunt object, therefore, the applicant may also be released on bail. In reply of the above contention it is submitted by learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the complainant that the bail of the co-accused Visesh has been allowed after considering the statement of P.W. 1 because no specific role has been assigned to the co-accused Visesh and in his cross-examination P.W. 1 has stated that weapon kassi was used from this blunt side it was not used from its natural side. It's benefit has been given to the co-accused Visesh by another Bench of this Court but the participation of the applicant for causing injury on the person of the deceased is established by ante-mortem injury No. 2, i.e., Incised wound and the trial of the applicant is in progress. At this stage the applicant may not be released on bail.
(3.) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the record it appears that applicant is not entitled to get the benefit of parity with the co-accused Visesh and the trial of this case is in progress. There is no new ground for releasing the applicant on bail. All the grounds taken in the second bail application touching the merits of the case have already been considered at the time of the disposal of the first bail application, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly, this application is rejected.;