- (1.) SHIV Shanker, J. This first bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant Kamal Singh in Case Crime No. 443 of 2007, under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, IPC P. S. Kotwali, Kayamganj, district Farrukhabad.
(2.) HEARD Sri Sant Sharan Upadhyaya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant, S/sri Amit Kumar Singh and P. B. Verma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of complainant and learned A. G A. as well as perused the record. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that seven persons have been named in the FIR and it has been alleged that all the seven accused persons including present applicant made firing upon Prakash Chandra who died due to sustaining fire arm injuries. According to the post-mortem report, only two fire arm injuries were found on the dead body of deceased. It has not been specified as to who two persons caused fire arm injuries on the body of deceased among seven accused persons. It is further contended that the informant is brother-in-law (sala) of deceased. The presence of in formant is doubtful. It is further contended that the incident had taken place in dark ness. There was no source of light. Bail of co-accused Ram Kishan has already been granted by another Bench of this Court. The applicant has been bailed out in another case for the offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 504, 506, 427, IPC. Therefore, his bail application is also liable to be allowed. On the other hand, learned Coun sel for complainant and learned A. G. A. had urged that bail of co- accused Ajay Kumar, Arvind, Nanhey alias Ajeet have already been rejected by another Bench of this Court vide its order dated 1. 11. 2007 and 7. 11. 2007 on the ground that the present application along with companions com mitted another offence relating to tamper ing the witnesses. Therefore, his bail appli cation is not liable to be allowed.
(3.) SEVEN persons including the pres ent applicant have been named in the FIR and two fire arm injuries were found on the dead body of deceased. The role of all the seven accused persons has been attributed to make firing upon the body of deceased and it has not been specified anywhere as to whose shots were hit on the body of deceased. Therefore, five among seven per sons had not caused any injury on the body of deceased. This incident had taken place on 1. 6f2007 at 6. 30 p. m. while the FIR was lodged by the informant who is sala of de ceased on 1. 6. 2007 at 8 p. m. after covering distance of one and half kilometres. There fore, it was not lodged promptly while the informant was allegedly present with the deceased. Bail of co- accused Ram Kishan has already been granted by Hon. S. S. Kul-shrestha J. , vide its order dated 9. 10. 2007 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23245/2007 on the following grounds: "that seven persons have been nomi nated in the FIR for opening fire from the lethal weapons but the victim sustained only two fire arm injuries. It is not ascertainable as to who caused those injuries. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused-applicant de serves bail. " Therefore, the case of present applicant is also identical on the same footing with above co-accused. So far as the rejection of bail of co-accused Ajay, Arvind and Ajeet alias Nanhey is concerned, their bail applications have been rejected by another Bench (Hon'ble Vinod Prssad, J.) vide its orders dated 1. 11. 2007 and 1. 12. 2007 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No. 24348/07, 24380/07 and 28011/07 on the ground trial tampering of evidence and threatening of witnesses by raiding the house when the male members have gone to mortuary with the body of deceased. Regarding the said tampering and threat ening, FIR of Crime No. 444/07 for offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 427, IPC has been registered at P. S. Kayamgarj District Farrukhabad against the applicant. Parity is not the rule of law but it is the rule of convenience and since on the earlier oc casion the factum of tampering with the evidence and threatening of witnesses was never brought to the notice before this Court and the Hon'ble Judge who granted bail to the co-accused did not consider the said fact, therefore, I am not inclined to grant parity of the aforesaid co-accused Ram Krishan to the present applicant. ";