Jitendra Singh and Another vs State of U.P.

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This is the third bail application on behalf of the Appellants. The first bail application was rejected vide order dated 15.11.2007 and second bail application was rejected vide order dated 18.4.2008. The principal submission raised by learned Counsel for the Appellants is that the Appellants have been convicted u/s 304 IPC, although they are only said to have used lathi and some part of the plough for assaulting the deceased and three injured, but most of the injuries received by the injured are simple in nature. The author of the fatal injury, caused to the deceased, could not be identified. The incident appears to have taken place in the aftermath of firing on the brother of the Appellants by the prosecution side, for which they were also being convicted. Cross case has also been filed and cross criminal appeal No. 6257 of 2007 is connected with this appeal. Appellants have been in jail since 11.9.2007 i.e. for a period of about three years and two months and they have served some period of imprisonment earlier also before their release on bail during trial.

Learned A.G.A. argued that the injuries received on the side of the Appellants have not been proved and the present incident appears to be the sequel of the earlier incident where the brother of the Appellants was fired upon. Having considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are of the view that the Appellants may be released on bail at this stage.

Let the Appellants Jitendra Singh and Bijendra Singh, convicted and sentenced by judgment and order dated 11.9.2007 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Moradabad in Sessions Trial No. 1402 of 1996 arising out of case crime No. 83 of 1995 under Sections 304, 323, 324, 325, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Naugawa Sadat, Moradabad, District J.P. Nagar, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on depositing the 50% of fine by each of the Appellants. The realization of remaining amount of fine imposed upon the Appellants shall remain stayed during the pendency of their appeal.