VIJAY KUMAR VERMA,J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in these applications under sec­tion 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Proce­dure (in short 'the Cr.P.C.'), is to the order dated 26.2.2008 passed by Sri P.N. Sachan, the then in charge Sessions Judge Hamirpur, granting bail to the opposite parties Tinku @ Rahul Paliwal and Sanjay Paliwal, who were involved in case crime No. 1402 of 2007, under sections 147, 148, 143, 302, 504 and 34 IPC, P.S. Sumerpur, District Hamirpur.
(2.) SINCE both the applications have been moved for the same purpose and arise out of the same case crime number, hence, for the sake of convenience, both the applications are being disposed of by this common order. The papers will be referred from Crl. Misc. bail cancellation application No. 12195 of 2008. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filing of these applica­tions, in brief, are that an FIR was lodged on 17.10.2007 by Ram Kishore Pandey at P.S. Sumerpur, District Hamirpur, where a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 and 34 IPC was rejected against Vijay Mali. Tinku Paliwal @ Rahul, Sanjay Paliwal, Sageer, Sandeep and Munna @ Om Prakash at case Crime No. 1402 of 2007. The allega­tions made in the FIR, in brief, are that on 17.10.2007 at about 7.30 p.m. when the complainant Ram Kishore Pandey was having talks with Kamlesh Pandey, sitting on the chabutara and his son Raj Kishore along with his maternal uncle Ram Chandra Shukla was standing in front of the door of the house, the accused persons named above came there on two motorcy­cles and on the exhortation of Tinku Pali­wal, the co-accused Vijay Mali fired on Raj Kishore, which hit him and when Raj Kishore with a view to save his life, rushed towards the door of Lakhan Gupta, the ac­cused Tinku Paliwal and Sanjay Paliwal (both opposite parties herein), fired from country made pistols on Raj Kishore, which hit him, due to which he fell down there. In injured condition, Raj Kishore was carried to the hospital, where he was declared dead.
(3.) APPLICATION for bail was moved on behalf of opposite parties, which was de­cided by the incharge Sessions Judge, vide impugned order dated 26.2.2008, whereby both the opposite parties were released on bail. Hence, these bail cancellation applica­tions.;