1. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted, that although the applicant has been named in the F. I. R. And is alleged to have fired at the time of the incident but the injuries received by the deceased are directly attributed to Kamal, co-accused and as such the case against the present applicant would require further inquiry, even if the prosecution version is accepted, in respect of applicability of the provisions of section 149, P.P.C.
2. The learned Assistant Advocate. General appearing for the State does not oppose the above bail application, as injuries received and the deceased are not directly attributed to the present applicant and further no fire-arm was secured from the possession of the present applicant on his arrest and consequently the question of applicability of the provisions of section 149, P.P.C. As far as present applicant is concerned, would require further inquiry at the stage of trial in view of these facts.
3. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have gone through the F.I.R. Of the case in question. The F.I.R. Clearly shows, that co-accused Kamal fired at deceased whereas the other accused mentioned in the F.I.R. Are alleged to have fired their guns and revolvers but no further details of such firing by such accused is given in the F.I.R.
4. According to post-mortem report deceased had tow fire-arm injuries on his head.In the absence of any allegations, that the present applicant did fire on the deceased, the case against the applicant would depend on the applicability of section 149 P.P.C. Prima facie on the basis of the present facts on record.In my opinion the question of applicability of section 149, P.P.C. To the present case would require further inquiry at the stage of trial and consequently I allow the above application and direct that the applicant may be released on bail on his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.30,000 with the P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.