Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7140 of 2009 Petitioner :- Rajneesh & Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Ravindra Prakash Srivasta Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,Sushil Chandra Srivastava Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh,J.
Hon’ble Shyam Shankar Tiwari,J.
Heard Sri R.P. Srivastava, learned Advocate appeared to press bail
application moved on behalf of appellants Rajneesh s/o
Parashuram and Parashuram s/o Ram Naresh Chaudhary. Sri
Sushil Chandra Srivastava appeared for the informant is also heard
and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
Submission is that admittedly it is night incident and even if the
prosecution version is accepted the role of fire is given/assigned to
Ram Bahadur @ Kaushal and so far these appellants are concerned
the only allegation is that they were seen while running after the
fire of the deceased.
Submission is that the finding of the learned Trial Judge that there
was no source of light on the spot and it is after the incident the
witnesses wake up and they saw the accused persons running in
the torch light.
Submissions is that it is a case of single shot and thus after the fire
if some body was sleeping at nearby place, in the torch light it is
not possible to see the actual commission of the offence so as to
clearly states that who had commit the offence, so far appellant
concerned are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
In response of the aforesaid Sri Sushil Chandra Srivastava and
learned Additional Government Advocate submits that although it
is night incident, prompt report and witnesses are there who saw
the accused persons running after committing the offence, so far as
it not a case of grant of bail.
On a perusal of the facts and finding so recorded it is clear that on
the spot no source of light was found and the finding is that after
the incident witnesses saw the accused running and it was seen in
the torch light. It is case of single fire and thus after commission of
the offence even if the witnesses saw the other co-accused namely
Ram Bahadur @ Kaushal then so far the appellants are concerned
the role remain only of exhortation.
Submission is that appellant were on bail during and they did not
misuse the same and 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 of the
considered view that the appellants are entitled to be enlarged on
bail.
Accordingly, let the appellants Rajneesh and Parashuram involved
in S.T. No.1 of 2008, be enlarged on bail on their furnishing
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 :- 7.1.2010
pp