Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7943 of 2009 Petitioner :- Shethi @ Shri Dayal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Tufail Hasan Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh,J.
Hon’ble Shyam Shankar Tiwari,J.
Heard Sri Tufail Hasan, learned Advocate who appeared to
press bail application moved on behalf of Shethi @ Shri
Dayal who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 7943 of 2009
and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
Learned Government side has filed objection to the appeal
and thus although the record is not available today but in
view of the submissions as advanced/noted the matter has
been heard.
Applicant above named was prosecuted for the offence
punishable under Sections so mentioned in the judgment
and he is to serve out the sentence so provided.
Submission is that it is a case where the deceased has
received knife injuries and the role of giving knife blow is to
Amitabh Bachchan . Submission is that the only charge
against the applicant is that he was having knife which
Amitabh took from him and thus he committed the offence.
Submission is that on the facts so proved there is absolutely
no motive to commit the offence and it is just for the reasons
so given in the prosecution version and otherwise, applicant
has been named.
Submission is that the appellant was on bail during trial and
he did not misuse the same and as the appeal is not so old it
will take some time in its disposal, the appellant is entitled to
be released on bail.
Learned Additional Government Advocate to oppose the
aforesaid submits that although submission that appellant
has not caused any injury to the deceased and the role of
causing injury to the deceased is given to Amitabh but as
appellant was having knife which was used, and therefore,
after conviction he is not entitled to be released on bail.
After hearing the aforesaid and on notice of the details it is
clear that appellant is just said to be having knife with him
which was taken by Amitabh, the co-accused for causing
injury to the deceased. Appellant is said to have caused no
injury to the deceased and thus at this stage a clear
distinction can be drawn between the case of Amitabh and
that of the appellant.
Appellant was on bail during trial and he claims to have not
misused the same and the appeal is not so old and thus it
will take long time in its disposal, thus the appellant is
entitled to be enlarged on bail.
On the facts, and totality of the circumstances this court is of
the considered view that the appellant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, let the appellant Shethi @ Shri Dayal involved
in S.T.No. 392 of 2008, be enlarged on bail on his 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 appellant 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 :- 3.2.2010
M.A.A.