Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

It is noted that in the said order of the Sessions Court dated 19th October, 2022, it was observed that "on perusal of the main charge-sheet as well as the first supplementary charge-sheet except for general information regarding incidents taken place during the riot, one cannot get any idea as to for what particular incident this particular case was registered and charge-sheet was filed."

4.2 FIR No.2: It was submitted that as regards this FIR, it was registered on the basis of DD No.163A received from the Trauma Centre regarding firearm injury to one Ajay Kumar Jha. It was stated by the complainant that when he went to buy house-hold articles, he saw a huge crowd gathered near Chand Bagh Pulia raising slogans and there were many people at petitioner‟s house who were chanting religious slogans, pelting stones and throwing petrol bombs. The investigation is complete and a charge-sheet has been filed on 27th July, 2020 and the petitioner is not required in custody; 5 out of 6 accused have been granted bail. There is an inordinate delay of 5 days in registration of FIR which has not been explained; the incident took place on 25th February, 2020 and the FIR was registered on 1st March, 2020. The alleged victim Ajay Kumar Jha has not named the petitioner and later made improvements while his statement was recorded under sections 161 Cr.P.C. No evidence was collected by the prosecution of any video or CCTV footage to prove the presence of the petitioner at the time of incident. The victim‟s statement is similar to the statement of victims in FIR No.88/2020 and FIR No.92/2020 which throws a serious doubt on credibility of the statements. Statements of witnesses as well seem to be manufactured. Some of the statements of public witnesses are not relevant in the present FIR. A cut-copy-paste process has been adopted by the prosecution. The public witnesses are the same, their statements are identical as also the statements of so-called eyewitnesses were recorded after a gap of 4 months of the incident. The witnesses seem to be omnipresent since they are witnesses in other FIRs also. As an illustration, Ct. Saudan is a witness in FIR No.88/2020, FIR No.91/2020, FIR No.92/2020; Ct. Pawan is witness in FIR No. 80/2020, FIR No. 88/2020, FIR No.91/2020, FIR No.92/2020, FIR No. 117/2020 and FIR No. 120/2020; Harish Chander is witness in FIR No.88/2020, FIR No.91/2020, FIR No.92/2020 and Prashant Kumar is witness in FIR No.88/2020, FIR No.91/2020, FIR No.92/2020. It was further submitted that the applicability of section 307 IPC, which is the only non-bailable section, has been negated by the FSL report dated 31st August, 2021 which states that the evidence bullet was not found identical when compared with the test-fired bullet fired through the pistol 7.65 mm caliber. The credibility of eyewitnesses namely Ct. Saudan and Ct. Pawan has already been raised by this Court in order dated 13th October, 2020 in Bail Appl. 2925/2020 Kasim v. State, with regard to the co-accused in FIR No.91/2020 stating as under "There is no explanation as to why the said police officials did not make any PCR call/DD entry to the concerned police station regarding involvement of petitioner on 25.02.2020. The injured made his statement on 02.03.2020 wherein he named the petitioner and only thereafter, the Ct. Saudan and Ct. Pawan made their statements on 03.03.2020 stating that they were on duty at the spot on the date of incident and had seen the incident and identified the petitioner." Moreover Ld. Sessions Court vide order dated 13th October, 2020 has discharged the petitioner in respect of offences under section 435/505 IPC as also under section 27 of the Arms Act.