VINOD PRASAD,J. - (1.) APPLICANT Jamuna Nishad has sought his release on bail in crime number 946 of 2008 for offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 452, 333, 353, 323, 504, 506, 427, I.P.C. and 27 Arm's Act, PS Kotwali District Maharajganj. This bail application was heard earlier and order was reserved but avizandum some clarification was needed and therefore it was listed for further hearing today.
(2.) HEARD Sri G.S. Hajela, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA in support and opposition of this bail application. On 7.6.2008 at 10 p.m. a rowdy mob armed with lethal fire arms in the motorcade of the applicant in five or six cars, lead by the present applicants Jamuna Nishad, raided police station Kotwali, district Maharajganj, entered into it's precinct, destroyed public property and assaulted and roughed up police personals present there by indulging into rowdyism and thereby, besides other offences, committed offence under section 332 I.P.C. One of the person in that motor caravan also shot at constable Krisha Nand Rai, who while being carried to the hospital lost his life. The immediate cause of such illegal and unruly behaviour was that one Dharmendra Upadhyay had raqvished the chastity of informant Ramanand Sahani's daughter but the police had registered the offence only under section 354 I.P.C. and therefore said accused was enlarged on bail. Applicant along with his rioters had gone to police station Kotwali protesting the act of the police. In the incident two other police constables, besides the deceased had sustained injuries as well and their 161 Cr.P.C. statements have been appended along with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant as annexure SA1.FIR of present incident was lodged by Vijayi Prasad Chawdhari, Incharge Inspector, PS, Kotwali, district Maharajganj on the same day at 11.30 p.m. registered as crime number and for offences mentioned above. Autopsy report of the deceased dated 8.6.2008, indicate that he had sustained fire arm injury.
(3.) ON such facts I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA in support and opposition. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that so far as present applicant is concerned, he has not fired at anybody. He further submitted that the fire was not made from the car in which the applicant was travelling but it was fired when the applicant had already left the place of the incident and therefore applicant had no knowledge of it. It was further submitted that the applicant is a M.L.A. and was a Minister is State Cabinet and therefore, as a public servant it was his duty to look to the fact that law and order situation of his constituency is not disturbed. It was further contended that since the applicant was protesting against non lodging of FIR under Section 376 I.P.C., he cannot be saddled with any responsibility. It was also argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to political rivalry. It was further submitted that so far as criminal history of the applicant is concerned, he has already been acquitted in all the cases shown against him. Arguendo, learned counsel for the applicant supplied the photocopy of bail granting order of Shailendra Madheshiya, who according to his argument, is the main shooter. It was further submitted that though the applicant is in jail since last a year but till date neither the charges have been framed nor the case has been committed to the court of sessions for trial. On such facts, learned counsel prayed for bail to the applicant. ;