- (1.) SAROJ Bala, J. These two applications moved by the complainant Ram Narain Rai and the Central Bureau of Investigation for cancellation of order dated 15. 5. 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/fast Track Court No. 1, Ghazipur whereby granting bail to the ac-cused-Mansoor Ansari are being decided by a common order.
(2.) THE opposite party No. 2 is an ac cused in S. T. No. 21 of 2008 (Crime No. 589 of 2005)- State v. Sanjeev Maheshwari and another, under sections 302/120-B and 307/120-B IPC. THE FIR was lodged on 29. 11. 2005 naming Munna Bajrangi, Atta-Ur-Rahman alias Babu, Ejaz, Firdaus, Mukhtar Ansari and Afzal alleging that the convoy of late Krishnanand Rai was at tacked with sophisticated weapons killing seven persons including Krishnanad Rai at the spot and many injured. On the basis of FIR Crime case No. 589 of 2005 was regis tered under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 404, 120-B IPC and section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, at Police station Bhanwarkol, District Ghazipur. A writ pe tition was moved on 7. 2. 2006 by Smt. Alka Rai, wife of late Krishnand Rai. On 21. 2. 2006 two charge sheets were filed by the U. P. Police against the named accused Munna Bajrangi and others. After the filing of the charge sheets investigation was handed over to CBI in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 23. 5. 2006 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. THE CBI, submitted the first supplementary charge-sheet dated 31. 5. 2006 in the Court of Spe cial Judge, CBI, at Lucknow against ac cused Sanjeev Maheshwari alias Jeeva. Second supplementary charge-sheet was filed by CBI, on 12. 12. 2006 against Rakesh Pandey and Ramu Mallah. THE accused opposite party was shown as absconding accused in the charge-sheet dated 12. 12. 2006. THE third supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the accused-opposite party Mansoor Ansari on 23. 3. 2007. In the third charge-sheet filed by the CBI all the accused persons including those against whom charge-sheets were filed earlier by the police, were nominated. THE accused-opposite party surrendered before the Special Court at Lucknow on 23. 12. 2006. An application (Crl. Misc. Case No. 1897 of 2007) for bail moved on behalf of the accused-opposite party in the Court of Sessions Judge, Lucknow was rejected by the I/c Sessions Judge vide order dated 7. 6. 2007. THE CBI and complainant Ram Narain Rai filed Misc. transfer applications No. 743 of 2007 and 744 of 2007 for transfer of S. T. No. 253 of 2006 State v. Aizaz-ul-Haq and S. T. No. 254 of 2006 State v. Mukhtar Ansari from the Court of Additional Ses sions Judge/f. T. C.-l, Ghazipur to the des ignated CBI, Court at Lucknow. Rejecting both the transfer applications vide order dated 20. 12, 2007 this Court directed the Special Judge, CBI, Lucknow to transfer the supplementary charge-sheets along with relevant record to the Court of C. J. M. , Ghazipur for committal of case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/f. T. C.-l, Ghazipur where Sessions trials of co-accused were pending. THE cognizance against the five accused nominated in the FIR was taken by C. I. M. , Ghazipur on 25. 2. 2006 and the case was committed on 25. 5. 2006 to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ghazipur. After the framing of charges against the co-accused, thirteen witnesses were examined. After the transfer of the supple mentary charge-sheets filed by the CBI and committal of case to the Court of Addi tional Sessions Judge/f. T. C-1, Ghazipur, second bail application was moved on be half of the accused-opposite party Mansoor Ansari on the grounds that the accused-opposite party surrendered on 23. 12. 2006 before the Court of Special Judicial Magis trate, CBI, Lucknow. The accused- opposite part)' contested the bye election of M. L. A. from Mohammadabad constituency held in February, 2006 against Smt. Alka Rai, wife of slain M. L. A. Krishnanad Rai. During the canvassing of bye election Smt. Alka Rai made futile efforts to dissuade and pressurize the accused-opposite party to withdraw his candidature and he having not obliged, she was enraged and threatened to teach him a lesson. Smt. Alka Rai and her asso ciates exercised political pressure and in troduced two witnesses Ramesh Chandra Rai and Nand Lal Rai to implicate him in the instant case. The statements of wit nesses were recorded by the CBI, on 17. 9. 2006 and 18. 9. 2006. Their statements under section 164 Cr. P. C. were recorded in November, 2006. The witness Ramesh Chandra Rai is a man of criminal antece dents involved in case crime No. 488 of 2005 under section 135-A of Representation of People Act and in case crime No. 15 of 2007 under sections 323, 307, 504, 506 IPC. The witness Nand Lal Rai is a pocket wit ness of late Krishnand Rai and his family. The incident took place at 2. 45 P. M. The telephonic message was received at the police station Bhanwarkol at 3. 20 P. M. that firing was going on near Basania village. It was quite improbable to reach at 4 P. M. at Yusufpur situated at a distance of 38-40 Kms. from Basania. It was pleaded that the accused-opposite party was not a man of criminal background and there was no likelihood of his interfering with the prose cution evidence. There is no creditworthy evidence to show that the accused-opposite party was party to any criminal conspiracy. Qualis vehicle in which the main assailants took to their heels was not connected with the accused- opposite party. The second bail application was resisted by the C. B. I, on the grounds that after rejection of first bail application on 7. 6. 2007 Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4488 (B) of 2007 was filed before the Bench of this Court" at Lucknow. The said bail application was rejected after applica tion of judicial mind. The contention was that after the rejection of first bail applica tion no fresh grounds came into existence. Superior Court having applied its judicial mind, High Court alone was competent to entertain and consider the second bail application. It was alleged that the accused-opposite party absconded and his name was shown as absconding accused in col umn No. 2 of the second supplement charge-sheet. The name of the accused-opposite party came to surface during fur ther investigation. The prosecution wit nesses, namely, Shashi Kant Rai and Manoj Kumar Rai were killed during the period the accused- opposite party was at large. It was alleged that there was security threat to the prosecution witnesses.
(3.) THE Additional Sessions Judge/ F. T. C-1, Ghazipur after considering the submissions granted bail to accused-opposite party Mansoor Ansari by the im pugned order. The cancellation of bail order has been sought by the CBI, on the grounds that while granting bail the norms and guidelines set up by the Apex Court in various decisions were not followed. The Apex Court vide order dated 22. 4. 2008 di rected the Trial Court to hear the bail ap plication of co-accused. There was no di rection for the hearing of the bail applica tion of the accused-opposite party. No fresh subsequent ground having arisen af ter the rejection of first bail application, the Additional Sessions Judge erred in consid ering and granting second bail prayer. The complainant has challenged the bail order on the grounds that the principles of adju dication of second bail application were not taken into consideration. The Court of Special Judge, CBI, at Lucknow being a Court of concurrent jurisdiction, the bail application moved before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/f. T. C-1 was second bail application and principles ap plicable for the disposal of second bail application were to be taken into account. The further investigation by the CBI, is still continuing, therefore, grant of bail caused serious prejudice. The bail application of co-accused Afzal Ansari was rejected by this Court. The bail application of co-accused, is pending disposal.;