IMPORTANT POINT
Giving reasons is different from discussing merits or demerits and the order must be reasoned.
The case suggests a disturbing state of affairs indicating some unholy nexus between the prosecuting agency and the accused.

JUDGMENT

D.K. Jain, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal by the complainant is to the order dated 10th March, 2008 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4167 of 2008, granting bail to the second respondent, Chhunnu @ Chhidda. The said respondent was one of the persons named in FIR No.181 of 2007, registered at Police Station Asmouli, District Moradabad against 22 persons. The FIR was initially registered for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short), but subsequently, on the death of two injured persons, Section 302, IPC was also added. The first respondent is the State of U.P.

3. Briefly stated, the background facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

On 18th September, 2007, at about 5.25 p.m., an FIR was lodged by the appellant with the said police station for an incident which took place at about 3.30 p.m. at village Asmouli. The case was registered as Crime Case No. 347 of 2007. It was reported that at about 3.30 p.m., on that day the appellant had gone to the shop of one Anzar s/o Mehboob where one Basiruddin @ Lala also came to buy some fruits. On Anzar’s (shopkeeper) refusal to sell goods to him on credit, Basiruddin started beating him, on which the appellant intervened. Being annoyed, Basiruddin left the place. But, after a short while he came back, accompanied by 21 other persons, including the second respondent. All of them were armed with guns and country made firearms. Due to fear, the appellant rushed to the house of his brother Qayyum. All the said 22 persons attacked the house of Qayyum. On hearing noise, the residents of the house and many other residents of the village, collected at the spot. The said accused started firing indiscriminately, injuring 9 persons. Some of them sustained multiple injuries. All the injured persons were removed to the District hospital for examination. As per the medical reports, the injured persons sustained gunshot injuries which were grievous in nature. Two persons, namely, Anzar Hussain s/o Mazhar Hussain and Rizwan @ Bhoora s/o Matloob Hussain, later succumbed to their injuries. While Rizwan died on 19th September, 2007, Anzar Hussain died on 30th September, 2007.

4. On the very same day viz. 18th September, 2007, another FIR (No.182 of 2007), pertaining to the same incident, was lodged at about 6.40 p.m. by the said Basiruddin @ Lala against 25 persons, inter alia, alleging that when he went to the shop of Anzar s/o Mehboob to buy some vegetables, he told Anzar that his vegetables were very expensive, on which Anzar and one Shahroz, who was standing there, started abusing him. When Basiruddin protested, they started beating him with legs and fists. Basiruddin then came back home but after some time, many people, including Shahroz, Anzar (since deceased) and Qayyum, came to his house and started firing with an intention to kill him.

5. The persons named in the first FIR were arrested on different dates. Upon recording the statements of some eye-witnesses, including the injured witnesses, charge-sheet was filed against all the 22 accused persons named in Crime Case No.347/2007, including the second respondent, on 19th November, 2007.

6. The second respondent moved an application before Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Moradabad for grant of bail. Keeping in view the fact that two persons had died and few others had sustained multiple injuries, by an order dated 18th January, 2008, the Addl. Sessions Judge rejected the bail application. On 20th February, 2008, charges were framed against all the accused for offences under Sections 148, 307 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 302 read with 149, IPC.

7. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court rejecting his bail application, the second respondent preferred the aforementioned bail application before the High Court. As noted above, by the impugned order, the H