Mukhram Singh and Another vs State of U.P.

Naheed Ara Moonis, J.—Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned Counsel for the Appellants is taken on record.

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and the learned AGA. Admit.

Summon the lower court record.

A prayer for bail has been made in this criminal appeal, which has been filed against a judgment and order dated 22.3.2011, passed by Additional SessionsJudge/F.T.C-1, Bijnor, in Session Trial No. 490 of 2005, State v. Rajvir, arising out of case crime No. 482 of 2003, under Sections 147, 323/149, 304(1)IPC, P.S. Sheohara, District Bijnor, whereby convicting and sentencing the Appellants to undergo for one year rigorous imprisonment u/s 147IPC, one year rigorous imprisonment u/s 323/149 IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment u/s 304(1) IPC with a fine ofRs.10,000/-, with default stipulation.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that initially a first information report was registered against six persons namely, Sonu, Monu, Dharmendra, Jagdish, Rajvir and Mukhram, in respect of an incident occurred on 21.11.2003 that the accused persons armed with lathi-danda assaulted the uncle of complainant on account of which he succumbed to injures and died on the same day.

It is further contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that initially the charge sheet was submitted against the aforesaid six persons, but later on during the trial, the trial of co-accused Sonu and Jagdish was separated on account of their juvenility and is pending while the trial of co-accused Monu has already been stayed by the another Bench of this Court. The trial court has convicted the Appellants and the charge was framed u/s 147, 323/149, 304(1) IPC. There is inconsistency in the injury report and post-mortem report of the deceased. It is not ascertainable who has caused the fatal injury to the uncle of the complainant. The Appellants were on bail during the trial and they had never misused the liberty of bail.

Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the Appellants and submitted that there is active participation of the Appellants, therefore they do not deserve to be released on bail.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Appellants as well as the learned AGA and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the prayer for bail of the Appellants is allowed.

Let the Appellants, Mukhram and Rajvir, convicted and sentenced in Session Trial No. 490 of 2005, State v. Rajvir, arising out of case crime No. 482 of 2003, under Sections 147, 323/149, 304(1) IPC, P.S. Sheohara, District Bijnor, 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. In the event of depositing 50% of the fine, the balance 50% amount shall remain stayed.