- (1.) HEARD both the sides.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Dilip Singh, submitted that the petitioner is in custody in connection with Sakchi RS. Case No. 189 of 2005 from 28.11.2006. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner alongwith two others has been involved in this case falsely by the informant against whom his brother has lodged Sakchi P.S. Case No. 188 of 2005 for various offences including under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Mr. P.P.N. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that originally the FIR was lodged under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and after wards charge -sheet has been submitted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code also. My attention was drawn towards the late submission of the charge -sheet against the petitioner and also that in counter case charge -sheet has been submitted against the informant and others. It is submitted that in counter case the evidence as well as FSL reports falsify the allegations made against the petitioner in the present case. The learned counsel persuaded me in vain to go through the case diary of Sakchi P.S. Case No. 188 of 2005. Both cases have been investigated separately and charge -sheets submitted independently. It was also suggested that the death of the child occurred not by firing resorted to by this petitioner but due to indiscriminate firing from the other side. Accordingly, petitioner who has undergone open -heart surgery in February 2007 may be admitted to regular bail.
(3.) LEARNED APP for the State alongwith Mr. A.K. Kashyap learned counsel appearing for the informant opposed these contentions on the ground that the petitioner is named in the FIR to have fired upon the informant and others resulting in death of a child for an occurrence dated 12.8.2005. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner and others have taken law in their hands and came to the place of occurrence having prepared themselves with many firearms and fired upon, resulting in death of a child. Mr. A.K. Kashyap learned counsel appearing for the informant further pointed out that the petitioner has got criminal antecedent vide para 145 of the case diary for offences under sections 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act. It was also submitted that the prayer for anticipatory bail and regular bail of the petitioner has been rejected earlier by this Court and Sessions Court on merit. Learned counsel further pointed out that eye witnesses vide paras 33 to 40 of the case diary have specifically mentioned that the death of child occurred due to firing made by this petitioner using the rifle. Therefore the petitioner does not deserve to be admitted on bail.;