Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7824 of 2009 Petitioner :- Majid & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Hasan Ahmad Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh,J.
Hon’ble Shyam Shankar Tiwari,J.
Heard Sri Hasan Ahmad, learned Advocate who pressed
the bail application on behalf of Majid and Meraj Ahmad who
are appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 7824 of 2009 and Sri
N. C. Tripathi, learned Advocate who appeared to press bail
application on behalf of Nanha alias Ashutosh Dwivedi who
is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 7218 of 2009 and
learned A.G.A. who appeared for the Government side.
Submission is that conviction is based on circumstantial
evidence and there is no direct evidence against the
appellants.
Submission is that in these matters the chain has to be
complete but for the last company.
Submission is that the person is said to have seen the
deceased in the last company of the accused has not been
examined and at the same time there is no additional
evidence/factor of last seen to be a link with the
murder/death of the deceased.
Submission is that the appellants were on bail during the trial
for the last about 9 – 10 years and they have not misused the
same and as the appeal is to take long time in its disposal,
the appellants are entitled for bail.
Learned Government side in response to the aforesaid
submit that although there is no evidence/circumstance after
it is said that the accused were seen with the deceased but it
is for the appellants to explain that after they went with the
deceased what happened/transpired and as prosecution
version has been believed and appellants were convicted it
is not a case for bail.
After hearing the aforesaid there is no dispute about the fact
that there is no direct evidence. The appellants were seen
with the accused but person who saw the aforesaid
company is said to have not been examined.
Any additional fact/evidence after the alleged company of
the deceased with the accused has not been pointed out
either in the evidence or by the learned trial judge.
All the three appellants were on bail which lasted for about 9
– 10 years and there is no charge of any misuse.
In view of the aforesaid, appellants are entitled for bail.
Let the appellants Majid son of Mohammad Shafi alias Kallu
Master; Meraj Ahmad son of Qasim Painter and Nanha alias
Ashutosh Dwivedi son of late Greesh Chandra be enlarged
on bail in S.T. No. 154 of 1999 (State Vs. Nannah alias
Ashutosh Dwivedi and others) on their furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned. Realisation of fine to the
extent of 50% shall remain stayed. Balance amount of fine
shall be deposited forthwith. The release order shall be sent
after deposit of the balance amount of fine.
Order Date :- 5.1.2010
Sachdeva