The learned Judge numbered the three grounds on which the earlier order granting bail to the accused had been set aside by this Court and then said as follows These are the three factors, which this Court is required to give its companysideration before affirming or disowning the previous order passed by it in favour of the accused applicant on 30.5.2004.
This order was challenged by the companyplainant Sompal Singh by filing Special Leave Petition Crl.
The bail application of companyaccused Virender Kalu had already been rejected by another learned Judge of the High Court.
The bodies of the two victims were found on the Chabutra and blood was also found there.
An FIR of the incident was lodged by Sompal Singh, brother of deceased Mahak Singh shortly thereafter at 8.00 a.m. at Police Station Doghat, which is 5 kms.
away from the place of occurrence.
The respondent number1 was involved in several criminal cases.
P.C. had also been recorded on 27.2.2004.
The statement of eye witnesses Sompal Singh and Vikram had been recorded in the trial long back and even the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.
P.C. companyld number be used at all at that stage.
According to the case of the prosecution, the incident took place at about 7.00 a.m. on 21.6.2001 when Sunil Rathi respondent number1 , his brother Arvind, Vikram, Virender Kalu, Shyambir, and Pramendra along with 3 4 other persons came and resorted to firing by pistols and stenguns upon Mahak Singh and Mohkam Singh while they were sitting on the chabutara of the baithak of Mohkam Singh.
No.2551 of 2003.
Instead of deciding the bail application on the basis of the evidence which was then available on record, the High Court chose to rely upon the statements of Vedu and Vipin Kumar as recorded under Section 161 Cr.
The order dated 30.5.2003 was accordingly set aside and the bail application filed by respondent number1 was directed to be companysidered afresh by the High Court after affording the companyplainant and the State an opportunity of hearing.
Mahak Singh and Mohkam Singh received several gun shot injuries and died on the spot.
The autopsy on the body of Mohkam Singh was performed at 6.15 p.m. and gun shot injuries were found on his body.
For reasons which are number clear from record, an order was passed by him to list the bail application before the same learned Judge who had granted bail on the earlier occasion.
The autopsy on the body of Mahak Singh was performed at 5.15 p.m. on the same day and the doctor found eight gun shot injuries on his person including five entry wounds and five exit wounds on the chest.
The trial companyld number be companycluded as the charge was amended and the prosecution witnesses were summoned again to enable the accused to cross examine them in the light of the amended charge.
But this being number a second bail application, the jurisdiction to hear the bail application lay with the learned judge assigned with the jurisdiction by the Chief Justice and he companyld number have passed an order directing the matter to be listed before a particular judge.
No.2921 of 2004 P. MATHUR, J. Leave granted.
Arising out of Special Leave Petition Crl.
The bail application was heard by the High Court much later on 27.5.2004.
Vedu and Vipin Kumar son of Mahendra Harijan were also injured.
The two injured, namely, Vedu and Vipin Kumar were medically examined at 9.30 a.m. at Primary Health Centre, Baraut and they were found to have sustained gun shot injuries.
Thereafter, the bail application was again heard by the same learned Judge and the accused was granted bail by the order dated 27.5.2004 which is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.
The FIR was promptly lodged naming respondent number1 and assigning a specific role to him of shooting by a fire arm.
This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred by the companyplainant, Sompal Singh first informant against the judgment and order dated 27.5.2004 of Allahabad High Court by which Sunil Rathi respondent number1 has been granted bail in a case under Section 147/148/149/302/307/404/504 and 506 IPC.
Sunil Rathi had been initially granted bail by the High Court on 30.5.2003.
