2022 (2) TMI 1403 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - murder - allegation of killing the farmers by making indiscriminate firing. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that incorrect description of the incident is given in the F.I.R. and as a matter of fact, three persons including the driver of the vehicle of the applicant were killed by the protesters and no such incident, as alleged, in the F.I.R. had taken place. HELD THAT - Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in toto, it is evident that as per the F.I.R., role of firing was assigned to the applicant for killing the protesters, but during the course of investigation, no such firearm injuries were found either on the body of any of the deceased or on the body of any injured person. Thereafter, the prosecution alleged that the applicant provoked the driver of the vehicle for crushing the protesters, however, the driver along with two others, who were in the vehicle, had been killed by the protesters. It is further evident that during the course of investigation, notice was issued to the applicant and he appeared before the Investigating Officer. It is also evident that the charge sheet has already been filed. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Let applicant - Ashish Mishra @ Monu be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to conditions imposed - application allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bail application for the applicant.
2. Allegations and evidence regarding the incident.
3. Prosecution's narrative and defense's counter-narrative.
4. Statements and findings from the investigation.
5. Legal provisions and administrative directives.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Bail Application for the Applicant:
The applicant sought bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 219 of 2021, under multiple sections of the IPC, Arms Act, and M.V. Act. The court deliberated on the applicant's entitlement to bail, considering the arguments from both the defense and prosecution.

2. Allegations and Evidence Regarding the Incident:
The prosecution alleged that the applicant, in a Thar Mahindra vehicle, along with others, arrived at a protest site at high speed, fired indiscriminately, and crushed protesters, resulting in deaths and injuries. The defense argued that the applicant was falsely implicated, asserting that the incident was a result of an attempt to escape from violent protesters.

3. Prosecution's Narrative and Defense's Counter-Narrative:
The prosecution's case was based on an F.I.R. filed by a complainant, alleging that the applicant and others armed with weapons attacked the protesters. The defense countered by stating that the protesters attacked the applicant's group, leading to a vehicle accident. The defense emphasized the absence of firearm injuries on the deceased and injured, suggesting the incident was an accident.

4. Statements and Findings from the Investigation:
The court reviewed statements from witnesses and doctors, the post-mortem reports, and the site plan. Witnesses claimed the applicant directed the vehicle to hit protesters, but no firearm injuries were found on the victims. The investigation revealed that the deaths and injuries were consistent with a vehicle accident. The court noted discrepancies in the site plan and the absence of a bus mentioned by witnesses.

5. Legal Provisions and Administrative Directives:
The court highlighted the lack of preventive action by the District Administration despite knowledge of the protest. It directed the Chief Secretary of U.P. to issue guidelines for regulating assemblies and processions to prevent such incidents. The court also emphasized the duties of the police under Sections 30 and 31 of the Police Act, 1861, to maintain order during public assemblies.

Conclusion:
Considering the absence of firearm injuries, the applicant's cooperation during the investigation, and the completion of the charge sheet, the court granted bail to the applicant. The court imposed conditions to ensure the applicant does not influence witnesses, cooperates in the trial, and does not leave the state without permission. The court also directed administrative actions to prevent similar incidents in the future.