JUDGMENT
V.B. Bansal, J.
(1) This order is to dispose of an application moved by Baleshwar Prasad under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for being released on bail for the offences under Secs. 147/148/149/307/34 Indian Penal Code In case Fir No. 258 dated 23rd July, 1991 Police Station Dabri.
(2) Case has been registered on the basis of statement of Ram Phal residence of WZ-180, Palam, New Delhi. It has, inter alia, been stated by him that he has been driving his own taxi and on 22nd August, 1991 at about 8.00 P.M. he was present in front of Chaurasiya Pan Bhandar when he heard alarm of ‘maro sale ko’ from behind and found Dharam Pal, Vir Bhan, Chander Bhan s/o Shri Mool Chand, Balesh @ Janglee s/o Ram Lal and Samay Singh and at that time Vir Bhan fired at him (Ram Phal) from the gun he was having on account of which Ram Phal fell down. In the meantime, Baleshwar Prasad fired at Ram Phal from the revolver he had in his hand. Ram Phal raised an alarm upon which his nephew Sukhbir came from his Video Cassette shop and tried to give assistance to Ram Phal when Samay Singh fired at him from a revolver. In the meantime, Dharm Pal, Vir Bhan, Baleshwar, Samay Singh and Chander Bhan fired in discretely as a result of which Manjit Singh also sustained injuries. Statements of witnesses have been recorded and R.K. Dubey, Manjit Singh, Ram Phal and Sukhbir are stated to have received fire arm injuries.
(3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 21st February, 1991 complainant party including Ram Phal complainant attacked Vir Bhan co-accused and caused multiple injuries to him on account of which a case under Sec 308 read with Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code was registered against the complainant party. He has also submitted that Fir 121 of 1990 was registered at P.S. Dabri under Secs. 307, 506 read with Sec. 34 Indian Penal Code in respect of an incident of 17th April, 1991 and as a counter blast the complainant party got registered case Fir No. 122/91. He has also submitted that in order to put pressure upon the complainant party in the said case the petitioner and others have falsely been implicated in this case. He has also submitted that in fact the petitioner has not participated in the alleged incident and a prayer has, therefore, been made for the release of the petitioner on bail.
(4) This application has been contested by learned Counsel for the State who has submitted that in fact the petitioner has been named in the very first statement of Ram Phal which forms the basis of the Fir and the petitioner had also fired from his revolver. He has further submitted that there have been indiscretely firing resulting in injuries to four persons and there were marks of bullets even on the wall at the place of occurrence. He has also submitted that injuries of S K. Dubey have been found to be dangerous and a prayer has, therefore, been made that the bail may be declined.
(5) I have given my thoughtful consideration to all these submissions and have also gone through the statements of the witnesses and the medical legal certificates.
(6) It is not disputed that both the parties are on inimical terms and they are already facing trial in cross-cases in respect of the incident of 17th April, 1991. With regard to the present incident there are specific allegations in respect of the petitioner having fired at the Ram Phal complainant who has fire arm injuries.
(7) Considering all the facts, I am clearly of the view that no case is made our for bail at this stage.
(8) As a result, the application stands dismissed.