Pratyush Kumar, J. - (1.) Since above mentioned three bail applications arise out of the same Case Crime No.18 of 2017, they have been heard together and disposed of by a common order. Heard V.P.Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by S/Sri Swetashwa Agarwal, Ajatshatru Pandey,learned counsel appearing for applicants, Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sishadri Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
(2.) These bail applications have been preferred by the accused-applicants, Chandan Agarwal, Vineet Gupta & Rakesh Agarwal, who are involved in Case Crime No.18 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 427, 325 I.P.C. P.S.-Sehpau, District- Hathras.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his application for bail submits that the incident had taken place on 8th February, 2017 at about 12.00 noon at Kokna crossing Jalesar road, district Hathras, when first informant alongwith his son and Sri Ramveer Upadhyay candidate for State Assembly of Bahujan Samaj Party and others were canvassing for Sri Ramveer Upadhyay. In one vehicle Chiragveer Upadhyay, s/o Ramveer Upadhyay was sitting between the first informant and his son Puspendra. They were ambushed by Devendra Agarwal, the then MLA Samajwadi Party, Sadabad alongwith other 25-30 armed persons. On exhortation of Devendra Upadhyay to murder Chiragveer Upadhyay, son of the first informant while trying to save him, was strucked by fire shot by Atul Agarwal, Chandan Agarwal, Rakesh Agarwal, Vineet Gupta also fired, rest of the accused had also beaten accompanying persons, there was indiscriminate firing by accused persons. At 3.30 p.m. F.I.R was lodged, there were five injured. When the police did not take any action on the First Information Report, Division Bench of this Court was approached by the first informant in Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No.2739 of 2017 (Ramhari Sharma vs. State of U.P. and 7 others), the Division Bench disposed of this writ petition alongwith one other writ petition of another person directing the authorities to provide protection to the witnesses, complete and conduct the fair investigation. In reference to the present matter, the Division Bench vide its judgment dated 19th May, 2017 has made following observations: "In the second writ petition, the perpetrators charged in a First Information Report of having committed a crime punishable under section 302 IPC were shown to be moving around unhindered and sharing the stage with the executive head of the State. The investigating agencies far from making efforts to record statements and take prompt action, had not even contacted the injured witnesses. It was in this backdrop that the Court was constrained take notice of the allegations levelled and call upon the State to explain their inaction. This Court therefore holds that in a situation where the orderly structure of society is threatened, the victim apprehends that the course of justice is likely to be derailed, it is the duty of a constitutional court to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the investigating agencies proceed in the matter in accordance with law. This action is necessitated to ensure that the faith of the people in the rule of law is not shaken or brought under cloud. Moreover the limited monitoring which the Court undertakes in such a situation [and as was done in the present case] is only to ensure that the investigation is carried out in a fair and impartial manner. This jurisdiction vesting in the Court cannot be doubted.";