Manohar and Others vs State of U.P.

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the lower court''s record.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.4.2010 in which prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the Appellants Manohar, Fauran Singh, Pappu and Kripa Ram, who have been convicted by learned Special Judge (E.C. Act), Agra in S.T. No. 67 of 2003 (State v. Manohar and others) under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C., S.T. No. 487 of 2003 (State v. Manohar), u/s 25/27 Arms Act S.T. No. 488 of 2003 (State v. Fauran Singh) u/s 25/27 Arms Act and S.T. No. 496 of 2003 (State v. Pappu) u/s 25/27 Arms Act and sentenced the Appellants for life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/-each, on non payment of fine to further undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and u/s 201 I.P.C. for five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-each, on non payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and further to undergo imprisonment for three years each u/s 25 of Arms Act and with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-each and non payment of fine to further undergo for rigorous imprisonment for six months.

It is submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellants that the F.I.R. is highly belated. The dead body of the deceased has been recovered after four five days of the incident which was not identifiable. The presence of the witnesses on the spot is doubtful. At least three Appellants are said to have caused fire arm injuries but no injuries have been found on the person of deceased.

On the other hand learned A.G.A. has argued that the F.I.R. was prompt. The commission of offence is disclosed in the F.I.R. itself which has been lodged on the same day within three hours of the incident. The recovered fire arm used by the Appellants has been tallied with recovered empty cartridges on the spot. The contradictions pointed out by the Appellants are minor and negligible. Prosecution case is supported by witnesses of fact.

Considering the facts and evidence available on record the Appellants Fauran Singh, Pappu and Kripa Ram do not deserve bail. Their prayer for bail is rejected.

Office is directed to prepare the paper book and after preparation of paper book list this appeal for final hearing in the month of July, 2011.

So far as the case of the Appellant Manohar is concerned, his case is distinguishable from the case of above three Appellants as the only role assigned to him is that of catching hold the deceased.

Considering the evidence on record, Appellant Manohar is entitled to be released on bail.

Pending appeal, Appellant Manohar convicted in S.T. No. 67 of 2003 (State v. Manohar and others and S.T. No. 487 of 2003 (State v. Manohar) shall be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and on furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Till further orders realization of fine of the Appellant Manohar shall also remain stayed.