Vijay Kumar Verma - (1.) -Heard Sri Nigamendra Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the record.
(2.) THE averments made in the F.I.R. lodged on 13.6.2007 at P. S. Syana, district Bulandshahr, in brief, are that the accused Yogendra, Dhiraj, Satish, Neeraj and Sandeep committed the murder of deceased Kaptan Singh son of the complainant Jagdish Singh on 13.6.2007 at about 4.30 p.m. by causing injuries to him by means of firearms. The main submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of the bail application is that the applicant did not cause fatal injury to the deceased, as according to the F.I.R. version itself, the shot which is said to have been fired by the applicant from pistol had hit in the right hand of the deceased. Next submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that five persons are said to have made indiscriminate firing on the deceased, but it is not ascertainable as to which accused had caused the fatal injury to him. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that ante mortem injury No. 1 appears to be fatal, as other injuries are on non-vital part and since it is not ascertainable as to who had caused injury No. 1, hence on these grounds the applicant should be granted bail in this case, because it cannot be said that he is the author of the fatal injury. It is further submitted that indiscriminate firing is said to have been made by the accused persons by their respective weapons, but even a single discharged cartridge was not recovered on the place of incident, which makes the prosecution story doubtful. It is also submitted that the deceased was history sheeter and he was eliminated by his enemies, but due to village partybandi and enmity, false F.I.R. was lodged against the applicant and other accused.
(3.) IT is also submitted that after considering the merit of the case, this Court has granted bail to the co-accused Sandeep vide order dated 4.6.2008, passed in Bail Application No. 15135 of 2008 and hence, on this ground also, the applicant deserves bail, as role of all the accused is identical. The bail has been resisted by the learned A.G.A., contending that the applicant had actively participated in the incident of causing the murder of deceased and hence, in this heinous crime he does not deserve bail.;