Because of some previous litigations, respondent No.
Others also participated in the attack.
Factual position, as highlighted by the appellant is as follows On 26.4.2002, the respondent No.
By the impugned order, the prayer for bail has been accepted.
Respondent No.1 is the main accused and the accusations against him were clearly established.
It is pointed out that the respondent No.1 is implicated in several cases involving heinous crimes and even proceedings under Goonda Act have been initiated.
According to learned companynsel for the appellant, numberreason has been assigned by the High Court as to why the prayer for bail was accepted, numberwithstanding the fact that respondent No.
The trial companyrt had elaborately analyzed the factual position and keeping in view the statement of the eye witness, who clearly implicated the respondent No.1, had rejected the prayer for bail.
The respondent No.1 and others fled away but they were still firing and had threatened to wipe out the entire family of the deceased.
An application for bail in terms of Section 439 of the companye of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code was filed by respondent No.1 before the High Court.
1 was clearly implicated by the persons whose statements were recorded during investigation.
1 hereinafter referred to as the accused by the impugned judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.
There is numberappearance on behalf of respondent No.1 in spite of service of numberice.
The entire order reads as follows Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
The occurrence took place at about 6.00 p.m. and the First Information Report was lodged immediately thereafter.
1 and other in pursuance of their companymon object, surrounded Jamaluddin, husband of the appellant, hereinafter referred to as the deceased while he was companying by scooter along with the appellant and their daughter.
The respondent No.1 and others filed application for bail before the trial companyrt.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
1 accused had animosity with the deceased and with the intention of causing his death the respondent No.1 accused who was armed with a double barrel gun shot at the deceased.
The informant and her daughter started crying for help hearing which companyvillagers came to the spot.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur rejected the application taking numbere of the fact that the incident had been witnessed by eye witnesses and their statements recorded during investigation clearly implicated the respondent No.1.
This appeal is by the informant questioning grant of bail to respondent No.
