Mahaveer and Another vs State of U.P.

Crl. Misc. Application No. 39194 (B) of 2010.

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

The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by appellants Mahaveer and Rohit against judgment and order dated 31.03.2010 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C. 2, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 681 of 1995 whereby they have been convicted under Sections 307/34 and 302/34 IPC and have been sentenced for maximum term of life imprisonment with fine stipulation.

We have gone through the judgment and record of lower court, including FIR, statement of two injured witnesses, namely, Smt. Guddi (PW-2) and Parmeshwar (PW-3).

It comes out from the FIR that Rajaram armed with gun, Rohit armed with country-made-pistol, Mahaveer and Horilal armed with lathis entered into the house of complainant; Rajaram fired from his gun, which hit Kripa Shankar (deceased), Smt. Guddi and Parmeshwar; although in the FIR it has been mentioned that Mahaveer was armed with lathi, but subsequently in the statements of PW-2 and PW-3 it has been stated that Mahaveer was armed with Addhi. In any case, the prosecution case and the evidence is to the effect that Mahaveer and Rohit did not fire either on the deceased or on the injured, who have been examined as PW-2 and PW-3; and Rajaram has also been convicted along with the present appellants, but as stated by the learned Counsel for the appellants he has not preferred any appeal.

The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have not been attributed the role with respect to firing either on the deceased or on the injured witnesses. 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 further stated that there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard and decided in near future.

After taking into consideration overall aspects of the matter, at this juncture prima-facie, we find it a fit case for bail.

Let appellants-Mahaveer and Rohit, convicts of the aforesaid sessions trial, be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond 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 bond and sureties filed by the appellants to be preserved in the record maintained here.