Jai Ram Pal vs State of U.P.

These two criminal appeals arise out of same crime and sessions trial number, therefore, the same are being disposed of by a common order.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate on this application moved u/s 389 Cr.P.C. for bail in pending appeal.

These two criminal appeal have been preferred by two appellants-Jail Ram Pal and Hari Ram Gupta against judgment and order dated 04.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, F.T.C. No.1, Room No. 10, Sultanpur in Sessions Trial No.7 of 1999, whereby they have been convicted under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 307/34 I.P.C., Section 3(1)(X) S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, and have been sentenced for maximum term of life imprisonment with fine stipulation.

We have gone through the judgment and record of lower court.

As per prosecution story, it comes out that on 15.10.1998 at about 10.00 a.m. the accused-appellants and other co-accused, persons namely Tulsi Ram Kori and Udairaj who were armed with spade (Bhala), Pharsa, lathi and danda in their hands assaulted the complainant''s family and caused injuries to them and on hue and cry the accused-appellants fled away from the spot.

Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the F.I.R. general role has been assigned to all the appellants, but in the statements of the witnesses it has come that Udairaj armed with Axe, Hari Ram Gupta armed with Ballamand Tulsi Ram armed with Pharsa and rest of the appellants armed with lathi, danda have caused injuries to the injured. It is further submitted that there are major contradictions in the statements of witnesses, that the injuries caused to the injured persons do not travel beyond the offence u/s 324 I.P.C. It is also stated that the learned court below has erred in awarding the life imprisonment u/s 3(2)(5) SC/ST (P.A.) Act independently. It is stated that the appellants were on bail during the course of trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to them. It is also stated that the appeal is of the year 2011 itself and the early disposal is the fundamental right of the appellants but there is no likelihood of the same being heard and decided in near future.

Learned A.G.A. has, however, opposed the prayer for bail.

In view of the arguments advanced by both the sides, we find it a fit case for bail.

Let appellants Jai Ram Pal and Hari Ram Gupta, convict of aforesaid sessions trial, be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

Realization of half of the fine is stayed and remaining half of the fine shall be deposited by the appellants within one month from the date of their release on bail.

Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is directed to transmit to this Court photocopies of bonds and sureties filed by the appellants to be preserved in the record maintained here.