Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J. 1. Applicant Jamuna Nishad has sought his release on bail in crime number 946 of 2008 for offences under sections 147,148,149,302, 452,333,353,323,504,506,427, I.P.C. and 27 Arm's Act, PS Kotwali District Maharajganj. This bail application was heard earlier and order was reserved but avizandum some clarification was needed and therefore it was listed for further hearing today. 2. Heard Sri G.S.Hajela, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA in support and opposition of this bail application. 3. On 7.6.2008 at 10 p.m. a rowdy mob armed with lethal fire arms in the motorcade of the applicant in five or six cars, lead by the present applicants Jamuna Nishad, raided police station Kotwali, district Maharajganj, entered into it's precinct, destroyed public property and assaulted and roughed up police personals present there by indulging into rowdyism and thereby, besides other offences, committed offence under section 332 I.P.C. One of the person in that motor caravan also shot at constable Krisha Nand Rai, who while being carried to the hospital lost his life. The immediate cause of such illegal and unruly behaviour was that one Dharmendra Upadhyay had raqvished the chastity of informant Ramanand Sahani's daughter but the police had registered the offence only under section 354 I.P.C. and therefore said accused was enlarged on bail. Applicant along with his rioters had gone to police station Kotwali protesting the act of the police. In the incident two other police constables,besides the deceased had sustained injuries as well and their 161 Cr.P.C. statements have been appended along with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicant as annexure SA1.FIR of present incident was lodged by Vijayi Prasad Chawdhari, Incharge Inspector, PS, Kotwali, district Maharajganj on the same day at 11.30 p.m. registered as crime number and for offences mentioned above. Autopsy report of the deceased dated 8.6.2008, indicate that he had sustained fire arm injury. 4. On such facts I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA in support and opposition. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that so far as present applicant is concerned, he has not fired at anybody. He further submitted that the fire was not made from the car in which the applicant was travelling but it was fired when the applicant had already left the place of the incident and therefore applicant had no knowledge of it. He further submitted that the fire was not made from the car in which the applicant was travelling but it was fired when the applicant had already left the place of the incident and therefore applicant had no knowledge of it. It was further submitted that the applicant is a M.L.A. and was a Minister is State Cabinet and therefore, as a public servant it was his duty to look to the fact that law and order situation of his constituency is not disturbed. It was further contended that since the applicant was protesting against non lodging of FIR under Section 376 I.P.C., he cannot be saddled with any responsibility. It was also argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated due to political rivalry. It was further submitted that so far as criminal history of the applicant is concerned, he has already been acquitted in all the cases shown against him. Arguendo, learned counsel for the applicant supplied the photocopy of bail granting order of Shailendra Madheshiya, who according to his argument, is the main shooter. It was further submitted that though the applicant is in jail since last a year but till date neither the charges have been framed nor the case has been committed to the court of sessions for trial. On such facts, learned counsel prayed for bail to the applicant. 5. Learned AGA, on the other hand, pointed out that the applicant was a minister at the time when the incident occurred and in his presence, the incident occurred in which a Government servant has been shot dead. It was further contended that the applicant have criminal history as well. I have gone through the record of this bail application and have perused instructions which was sent by the I.O. to the Government Advocate. 6. According to the prosecution allegations, the applicant was a minister. He had gone to the police station Kotwali to register a protest for non registering of an FIR of a rape offence. Perusal of instructions sent by the I.O. as well as statements of the witnesses as has been filed along with the supplementary affidavit in this bail application, clearly indicates that it was the applicant who led the unruly armed crowd. Being a member of cabinet, it was expected of him that he will set an example to the citizens of the State to follow the law. Being a member of cabinet, it was expected of him that he will set an example to the citizens of the State to follow the law. It is really worrying and appalling that the caravans which followed the applicant, Cabinet Minister, carried those people who were armed with lethal weapon and wielded them against law enforcing agencies. The incident started by destroying the public property inside the police station and even the constables present there were roughed up. There is no pleading in the bail application that the applicant at any point of time made any endeavour to stop the incident. The evidence of the witnesses recorded during investigation contrarily indicates that the applicant even used unparliamentary language against the government servant and even threatened them with dare consequences. To say the lest, if these facts are correct, it was the most bizarre incident by a Cabinet Minister of a State legislature. The conduct is most abhorrent and deplorable. I do not want to express any opinion on the guilt of the applicant at this stage but only express my serious concerned about the conduct which are now being projected by the public representatives. Carrying a cavalcade of people armed with illegal lethal fire arms by the public representatives have become a matter of pride for them with show of force to deter ordinary people who are the real constitution framers as they have adopted and given to themselves The Constitution( See Preamble). It is the need of the hour that all these types of show of muscle power and illegal weaponry in public places must be curbed. 7. The record of this bail application further indicates that the applicant had a criminal history. He was tried on many occasions and the judgements which have been appended by the applicant himself clearly indicates that all those cases landed up in acquittal because either the witnesses turned hostile or the case was forced to compromise. All these judgements are indicative of the influence which can be exerted by the present applicant. While dealing with the bail application of such high and mighty dignitary, the Court cannot eschew examining the fact whether grant of bail to the accused will be detrimental or not to the fair trial and whether the chances of tampering are very eminent or not? While dealing with the bail application of such high and mighty dignitary, the Court cannot eschew examining the fact whether grant of bail to the accused will be detrimental or not to the fair trial and whether the chances of tampering are very eminent or not? Looking to the record of acquittal which has been appended along with this bail application and the fact that the applicant was a minister in a Ruling Government, which is still in power in the State, the fair trial and exertion of pressure on the witnesses is not a remote possibility. In my above view, I draw supported from a judgment of the Apex Court in 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 1960 State of U.P. through C.B.I. Vs. Amar Mani Tripathi. 8. While cancelling bail of Amar Mani Tripathi, who curiously enough was also an M.L.A. and was a public an influential figure, the Apex Court has observed thus:- "19.It is well settled that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi ( 2001 (4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179 ). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(7) SCC 528 ):- "The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(7) SCC 528 ):- "The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, ( 2002 (3) SCC 598 and Puran v. Ram Bilas ( 2001 (6) SCC 338 ." (under line emphasis supplied) 9. Since, I find that releasing the applicant on bail, will be detrimental to the fair trial and the chances of tampering with evidences and terrorizing of witnesses are very eminent and also looking to the fact that in the presence of the applicant who was a Cabinet Minister, one police personnel was shot dead and public property was destroyed in a most blatant manner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant. The bail prayer of the applicant is declined and is rejected.