Court No. 7
Criminal Appeal No.648 of 2008
Govind Singh .....Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. ....Opp. Party
******
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
This is second application for bail as the first bail application was rejected
by Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Misra (since retired) vide order dated 22.04.2008.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on the
prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the record of the case.
Appellant Govind Singh has been convicted by the trial Court in S.T.No.663
of 2006 (Case Crime No.202 of 2006 of Police Station Lonar District Hardoi) for the
offence punishable under Section 307/34 I.P.C.. The maximum sentence awarded to
the appellant is ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in
default of payment of fine to further undergo six months imprisonment.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
first bail application was rejected on 22.04.2008 at that stage by observing only that
applicant has been given main role of causing injuries and there are corresponding
injuries so no good ground for bail at this stage is made out and other important
facts of the case were not taken into consideration at that time. It is further
submitted that alleged injuries were superficial and simple in nature and in view of
the principle of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ved Pal
Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 596, the case at the most may be
under Section 324 and not under Section 307 I.P.C. It was further submitted that the
alleged injuries could not have been caused by licensing gun as alleged by the
prosecution and this was the reason that the alleged licensing gun was also not sent
for ballistic examination which goes to establish that incident had not occurred as
alleged by the prosecution. The applicant is in jail since last one year and ten months
and there is no hope of early disposal of the appeal and the appellant has every hope
of success in his appeal so he should be enlarged on bail during the trial by
suspending sentence of imprisonment.
The bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, it is conceded that
the alleged licensing gun was not sent for ballistic examination.
Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. Admittedly,
the accused has undergone substantial imprisonment for a period of one year and
ten months and he was in bail during the trial of the case. There is nothing on record
that appellant misuse his liberty of bail. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case narrated above, keeping in view the argument put forward
by the parties, probability factors of the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that
it is a fit case for bail and suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Let the appellant
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the
fine imposed by the trial Court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant shall remain suspended
during the pendency of appeal.
06.01.2010
Amit