Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 847 of 2009 Petitioner :- Jairam & Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- S.M.A. Abdy Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh,J.
Hon’ble Shyam Shankar Tiwari,J.
Heard Sri S.M.A. Abdy, learned Advocate, who appeared to press the second
bail application moved on behalf of Jairam, Ram Gopal and Brij Lal, who are
appellants in Criminal Appeal No.847 of 2009 and the learned Additional
Government Advocate.
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 infact, the informant side received injuries from the side of
the accused and they went to the police station to lodge the report, but that
was not written and it is thereafter with a false case report has been registered
against the appellants.
Submission is that the entire prosecution story is not supported by any
positive evidence and conviction is based on inference and presumption.
Submission is that the injuries from sharp edged weapon are there on the body
of the deceased, but at the same time on the totality of the facts and
circumstances and keeping in mind the factor that during the trial the
appellants were on bail they are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Learned Government side submits that it is a case where the dead body of the
accused is recovered from the house of accused appellant Jairam and at the
same time the gun was also recovered. Keeping in mind the nature of injuries
and Kulhari which is with Jairam, he is not entitled to get discretion of the
Court and thus, the case of Jairam is to be separately considered with the case
of Ram Gopal.
On the facts so noted above, it is clear that Jairam is said to be with Kulhari,
Ram Gopal is said to be with lathi and Siya Ram is said to be having Farsha.
Submission about contradiction and the injuries which is said to have been
received by the deceased by Jairam, could not be placed before the Court
which can be considered at the time of hearing.
On the facts and totality of the circumstances this Court is of the view that the
prayer for bail application of Jairam is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the
prayer for bail of the appellant No.1, Jairam is rejected, but the prayer for bail
of the appellant Nos.2 and 3, Ram Gopal and Brij Lal is allowed. They are
entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal.
Accordingly, let the appellants Ram Goptal and Brij Lal involved in S.T.
No.575 of 1994 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 :- 18.1.2010
Ak/