Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497(2),497,498

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),324,114,148,149,504,337H(2),337A(i)

(a)    Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 497(2) & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 324, 114, 148, 149, 504 & 337-H(2)---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abettor present when offence committed, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, causing hurt by a rash or negligent act---Bail, confirmation/grant of---Further inquiry--Allegations against the accused-petitioners were that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person lost his life during the occurrence, whereas two persons sustained injuries---Allegations against the accusedpetitioners were that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person lost his life during the occurrence, whereas two persons sustained injuries---Admittedly, the main role of causing firearm injury to deceased had been attributed to co-accused, who was absconding---Whereas co-accused had also caused rifle shot to injured witness, he had not been arrested by the police so far---As far role of present applicants was concerned, all of them had allegedly made straight fires upon the complainant party aimed to commit their qatl-i-amd, however, none of the fires was provided to be effective---As far as role of accused HB was concerned, he allegedly caused weapon butt blow to injured witness on his head, but said injyry had been declared as shajjah-ikhafifah punishable Under S.337-A(i), P.P.C and was bailable---Co-accused having similar role had already been bailed out by the Trial Court, therefore, case of applicants was at par with them; hence, they deserved to be extended constant treatment---Since, the applicants had not been attributed any overt act or injury to deceased; hence, case against them in view of peculiar circumstances of the case required further enquiry within meaning of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C---Opinion of police was not binding upon the Courts; hence, the subsequent investigation conducted by the DSP upon directions of the DIGP at belated stage of trial might have not vitiated the evidentiary value of the prosecution case, which had already…