S.C. Agarwal, J.;— Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 6.1.2006 at about 10:00 a.m., whereas the FIR was lodged after more than 7 months on 19.8.2006 regarding a fake encounter by the applicant. On the date of incident, i.e. on 6.1.2006, applicant was posted as Station Officer Incharge, P.S. Katra, District Shahjahanpur. An information was received regarding a kidnapping on wireless set and the applicant along with constable 604 Kamlesh Kumar and constable 150 Suresh Chandra proceeded by jeep no.UP27D-2473 along with its driver Anjani Kumar Pandey towards Gadiya Rangeen road and started checking. At about 11 a.m., one motorcycle with three occupants was found coming from the side of Gadiya Rangeen. Seeing the police force, the motorcycle retreated and started back. The police party started chasing them. About one kilometer prior to Gulab Nagar, the motorcycle fell down in the canal and the occupants of the motorcycle started firing towards the police party. The nearby villagers were called by the police and miscreants were surrounded. The miscreants entered the arhar field of Moti Yadav. There was cross firing from both the sides. Two miscreants named Pankaj and Kamlesh Saxena surrendered and the dead body of the third person was found in the field with a firearm injury on the forehead and a country made pistol was in the hand of the dead body. The number plate of the motorcycle was hidden by a paper taped on it. The case was registered. Subsequently, on a complaint of it being a fake encounter, a Magisterial inquiry was held, which also exonerated the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow dated 10.9.2007, the empty cartridges found in the country made pistol were not fired from the same pistol. The injury on the person of the deceased could have been caused by 9 mm pistol. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that according to the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Lucknow dated 10.9.2007, the empty cartridges found in the country made pistol were not fired from the same pistol. The injury on the person of the deceased could have been caused by 9 mm pistol. Subsequently, CB-CID sought an expert opinion from State Medico Legal Expert, Lucknow, who submitted a report on 28.8.2008 stating therein that the injury of the deceased could have been caused by suicide and it was not possible to fix the bore of the weapon from the injury. It was, however, stated that the injury of the victim was not caused by a rifled barrel and injury was caused by contact or close contact fire. 4. It was further submitted that other members of the police party i.e. Kamlesh Kumar, Suresh Chandra and Anjani Kumar Pandey have been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated 23.4.2012, 27.4.2012 and 14.5.2012 respectively in criminal misc. bail applications no.9840, 10506 and 11709 of 2012. 5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant strongly opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it is a case of fake encounter. The applicant was issued a 9 mm pistol and the death of the victim could have been caused by fire shot by aforesaid pistol. There was no occasion for the deceased to commit suicide. It was a cold blooded murder. Other members of the police party had rifles, but no rifle injury was found and the applicant had surrendered after a considerably long time. 6. It was further submitted that during the course of Magisterial inquiry, the applicant managed to get prepared forged affidavits of various villagers in support of the police case, but such villagers, during investigation by the CB-CID, disowned their affidavits. 7. Statements made by Pankaj and Kamlesh Saxena, who were apprehended at the time of incident by the police, were recorded during Magisterial inquiry and these statements are annexure-5 to the counter affidavit. Both these witnesses have admitted that they as well as the deceased were going on a motorcycle. The police was chasing them by a jeep. The deceased Himanshu was driving the motorcycle, but despite being chased by the police, Himanshu did not stop the motorcycle and started speeding up, as he had no driving license. Both these witnesses have admitted that they as well as the deceased were going on a motorcycle. The police was chasing them by a jeep. The deceased Himanshu was driving the motorcycle, but despite being chased by the police, Himanshu did not stop the motorcycle and started speeding up, as he had no driving license. Subsequently, the motorcycle fell in a canal and thereafter all three of them started running towards the fields. Police party fired for about 10-15 minutes and asked them to surrender. Kamlesh and Pankaj surrendered, but Himanshu did not come out. From the statements of these two witnesses, major part of the story given by the police in the initial FIR of police encounter stands corroborated. 8. The police party was chasing the motorcycle whereupon Pankaj, Kamlesh and the deceased Himanshu were going. The deceased did not stop the motorcycle and started speeding up. Even if the motorcycle fell in the canal, they ran towards the field. If they were entirely innocent, their conduct was not consistent with their innocence. Whether the deceased committed suicide after being surrounded by police party or he was shot by the applicant, has to be decided during trial, which is likely to take considerable time. The other members of the police party have been granted bail. 9. The applicant is a police officer and a public servant. Chances of his fleeing from the course of justice are remote. 10. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail. 11. Let applicant Dinesh Kumar Singh involved in case crime no.21-A of 2006 under Sections 166, 167, 192, 218, 330, 342, 201, 302/34 IPC pertaining to Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions : (a) The applicant shall attend the court according to the conditions of the bond executed by him; and (b) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. ________________ HHHH 2012 (79) ACC 619 UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT BARIN GHOSH, C.J. AMRISH KUMAR and others Versus STATE OF UTTARANCHAL Criminal Application No. 767 of 2005 15-3-2012 Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Section 147, S. 341, Section 7 Indian Penal Code, 1860 -- Sections 147 and 341 r/w section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act—First information report under—Application challenging —Superintending Engineer remained absent or refused to come on time— Applicants and their associates purported to block the highway for two hours—Allegations made in FIR though disclosed wrongful actions but did not disclose actions on the part of applicants and their supporters—For which one can be punished under section 147 or under section 341, I.P.C.— Application disposed of by deleting those two provisions of I.P.C. from F.I.R. [Paras 1 and 2] ______________ HHHH 2012 (79) ACC 620 UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT B.S. VERMA, J. KARAMJEET SINGH Versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND and another Criminal Revision No. 33 of 2012 3-4-2012 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973— Section 216—Additional charge— Framed by Sessions Judge—Revision against—Section 216 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to alter charge at any time before the judgment is pronounced— No jurisdictional error in framing additional charge—No prejudice is caused to revisionist—Accused will have ample opportunity to cross- examine the witness on the point— Revision lacks merit—Dismissed. [Paras 7 and 9] ____________