1. Heard learned counsel for the accused applicant and Sri Shard Dixit, learned Special counsel for A.T.S. and perused the F.I.R. and other relevant papers filed in support of the bail application.

2. Allegation against the applicant is that he being owner of Guru Ram Das Armouray, Kanpur was involved in selling assembled/tampered fictitious foreign fire-arms to a carrier of naxal namely Sanjay Singh @ Mantu Sharma. The other allegation is that the applicant made fake entries in the stock register or without making any entry in the record sold assembled/tampered fire-arms to fake license-holders. The investigating agency after completing the investigation chargesheeted the applicant under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 121A, 122 I.P.C. and Section 3/25/30 Arms Act.

3. Shri I.B. Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant vehemently putforth his first contention that the total evidence collected by the investigating agency is not cogent and reliable. He states that the evidence collected against the applicant with regard to selling foreign arms to naxals is not worthy of credence. It is submitted as admitted in para 4 of the main counter affidavit that one carrier of naxals namely Sanjay Singh @ Mantoo Sharma along with some other was arrested in the year 2008 along with huge quantity of arms and ammunition by the police personnel of police station Gandhi Maidan, Patna. The case was registered against Sanjay Singh @ Mantoo Sharma and others at police station Gandhi Maidan, Patna under Sections 15, 16 and 17 of Unlawful Activity Prevention Act, 414, 121, 121(a) I.P.C. read with Section 3/25/26/35 Arms Act dated 12.10.2009. In this case, at the time of arrest of Sanjay Singh @ Mantoo Sharma, three riffles were recovered from his possession and he confessed that those riffles were bought from the shop of the applicant i.e. Guru Ram Das Armouray, Kanpur. There is nothing on record to show that these riffles were sold by applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit wherein in para 2(i) he has formed a specific question, which is as follows:—

(i) What is the number of arms supplied/sold to the naxals in total

5. The State filed supplementary counter affidavit dated 12th May, 2016 wherein in para 3 in reply to question no. (i) (that is the question referred above), submitted that the riffles, pistols and other fire-arms in bulk along with cartridges of different bore have been supplied to Sanjay Singh @ Mantoo Sharma by the present applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant states that though specific question was formed for prosecution to reply but the reply given is vague. It is further submitted that there is no other evidence against the applicant that the applicant supplied fire-arms in bulk along with cartridges of different bore to Sanjay Singh @ Mantoo Sharma except for three riffles which were recovered from him at Patna on 12.10.2009.

6. At this juncture, learned counsel for A.T.S. pointed out that it is on record that two times 20 cartridges each were supplied to Sanjay Singh @ Mantoo Sharma in the year 2008.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant again repeats his contention that there is no evidence that the applicant ever sold any riffle to Sanjay Singh @ Mantoo Sharma except for his own statement made before police on 12.10.2009 on recovery of three riffles from his possession that these were purchased from the gun shop i.e. Guru Ram Das Armouray, Kanpur from its owner, applicant.

8. This fact is not controverted by ShriSharad Dixit, learned Special counsel for A.T.S., the investigating agency.

9. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the evidence against the applicant of having naxals connection by selling assembled/fictitious foreign arms to Sanjay Singh @ Mantoo Sharma is weak, not cogent and reliable and is not worthy of credence.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the evidence collected by the investigating agency against the applicant for selling assembled/tampered fire-arms to other private persons is also not reliable for the reason that most of them could not be traced and thus their evidence could not be recorded.

11. ShriSharad Dixit, learned counsel for A.T.S. has annexed the statements of five witnesses of whom four are owners of the gun shop and one Awadhesh Kumar Mishra is a private person to whom it is alleged that the applicant had supplied fire arms of different make and bore. Fire arms were recovered from these witnesses and were sent to Forensic Lab for examination to confirm whether these were assembled/tampered firearms. The report of forensic is still awaited.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant further states that though it has been alleged that he was involved in selling assembled/tampered foreign fire-arms on fictitious documents but the investigating agency did not make any search of applicant's shop i.e. Guru Ram Das Armouray, Kanpur. It is further submitted that the documents of sale and purchase of fire-arms of Guru Ram Das Armouray, Kanpur were supplied by the applicant without any hesitation and if at all there was any illegal transaction or supply of fire-arms then he would have never supplied those documents which created such a situation for him to land in jail. Learned counsel for the applicant states that it is admitted fact that handwriting of the applicant has not been verified by the prosecuting agency. One witness namely Vijay Peter, Manager of the shop Guru Ram Das Armoury, Kanpur, in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that transactions were made in the writing of the applicant. Learned counsel states that Vijay Peter though he was Manager of the shop has not been made as an accused in the present case but instead his favours have been availed against the applicant.

13. Learned counsel finally contends that the evidence collected for applicant's involvement under Section 121 and 121A I.P.C. in the present crime is weak, the applicant was not made as an accused in the case which was registered at Patna against Sanjai Singh @ Mantoo Sharma. The allegation that applicant sold weapons to other Naxalite has no corroboration. None of the so-called Naxalite could be traced out nor any weapon was recovered. Thus, the Naxalite connection of applicant is completely ruled out. It is humbly submitted that no offence under Section 121 and 121A I.P.C. is made out against the applicant. It is submitted that the other offences levelled against the applicant are triable by Magistrate and the maximum sentence as provided is seven years. The present case is tried by the Sessions court only because of Section 121 and 121A I.P.C.

14. The accused applicant is in jail since 2.9.2013 as averred in para 21 and has no criminal history as averred in para 22 of the bail application. It is also submitted that the applicant is a law abiding person and there is no likelihood that the applicant would evade the proceedings of the trial.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, let the accused applicant be enlarged on bail in Case Crime No. 01 of 2013 u/S 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 121A, 122 I.P.C. And Section 3/25/30 Arms Act., P.S. A.T.S., District Lucknow on his furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned/remand Magistrate on the following conditions:

(a) The applicant would record his attendance before the trial on any date of every second week of the month.

(b) The trial court shall impound the passport, if any, of the applicant and will not be allowed to leave the country/State without permission of the court.

(c) The applicant will not meet or contact any prosecution witnesses of this case except the witnesses related to him by blood or marriage and will not make any effort either directly or indirectly to tamper with the evidence by extending threats directly or indirectly on any prosecution witnesses or tampering with the witness/witnesses in any manner whatsoever.

(d) He shall remain present before the court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If he wants to remain absent, then he shall take prior permission of the court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, he shall immediately give intimation to the appropriate court and request that he may be permitted to be present through the counsel.

(e) He will not dispute his identity as the accused in the case.

(f) An undertaking in the form of affidavit will be filed in the trial court by the accused applicant in co-operating the above conditions,

16. It is made clear that it will be open to the trial court to cancel the bail granted to the accused applicant in case of default of any of the above conditions irrespective of the fact that the bail has been granted to the accused applicant by this Court.

17. It shall also be open for the learned counsel for the opposite party to immediately move application for cancellation of bail if it is found that the applicant is misusing the liberty of bail granted to him.

18. The trial court shall also make its best effort to expedite the trial at the earliest.

19. However, this order shall not entertain other co-accused for parity. Their bail be considered on their own merits.