Court No. - 46
Petitioner :- Dharmendra
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- R .L.Verma
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Criminal Appeal No.6288 of 2009
Dharmendra ------------- Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. --------------------- Opp. Party
Connected With
Criminal Appeal No.6491 of 2009
Puttu Lal ------------- Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. --------------------- Opp. Party
************
Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh, J.
Hon’ble Shyam Shankar Tiwari, J.
Heard Sri R. L.Verma, learned Advocate, who appeared to press the bail
application moved on behalf of the appellants Dharmendra, son of Sri Ram
Gopal Jatav and Puttu Lal, son of Bhimsen Jatav and the learned Government
side.
Appellants, above named, were prosecuted for the offence punishable under
Sections so mentioned in the judgment and they are to serve out the sentence
so provided.
Submission is that it is a night incident. Although in the first information
report and otherwise it has come that the appellants alongwith Puttu Lal came
on the spot with their gun but it is the consistent evidence that Puttu Lal fired
from his gun upon Bhagwan Das which hit the deceased and he died on the
spot. The other co-accused Dharmendra also fired upon the applicant and his
brother with intention to kill him, but fortunately he escaped. Thereafter, the
accused appellant fled towards North side and the informant for want of any
means at night could not lodge the F.I.R. of the incident.
Submission is that there is material contradiction in the statement of P.W.1
and P.W.2. In the statement of P.W. 2 his brother said that he was sleeping
with the deceased but thereafter he said that he rushed from the house after
hearing the gun fire. Besides the aforesaid, other variation in the prosecution
version as has been noted by the trial Judge were also pointed out.
The motive of the crime is that there was earlier some altercation between the
appellants and the deceased. It is argued that the presence of the witnesses is
highly doubtful. The witnesses, who were examined during the trial did not
support the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the Sessions Judge
has disbelieved the testimony of the brother of the deceased whose presence is
also doubtful. There are contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses
which belies their presence. It is argued that the presence of the witnesses is
highly doubtful.
On the other hand learned A.G.A. opposing the prayer for bail submitted that
although it is a night incident, specific role is there and the eye witnesses have
been examined and they have been believed by the trial judge It is mentioned
in the judgment that the fire of Puttu Lal hit the deceased and he died on the
spot. There is sufficient evidence against the appellants and the Sessions
Judge has rightly convicted the appellants.
From perusal of the facts on record it is clear that the appellants were on bail
during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail.The appeal is not so
old and thus it will take long time in its disposal, thus the appellants are
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
On the facts and totality of the circumstances this Court is of the considered
view that the appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, let the appellants Dharmendra and Puttu Lal involved in S.T.
No.235 of 2006 be enlarged on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and
two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
Realization of fine in respect to above appellants to the extent of fifty percent
shall remain stayed. Balance amount of fine shall be deposited forthwith. The
release order shall be sent after deposit of fine.
Order Date :- 4.1.2010
Ak/