Rakesh vs State of U.P.

Hon''ble Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and Sri J.K. Sisodia, learned counsel for the informant.

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that according to the supplementary report, injured Joginder had sustained simple injury as the supplementary report does not indicate any fracture or internal damage. Counsel for the appellant in support of this second bail prayer contended that the trial Judge has passed the impugned order by suppressing and ignoring that material evidence, which was relevant and germane for recording conviction u/s 307 I.P.C. It is next submitted that bail prayer of the appellant was rejected in February, 2011 and after that appellant had already remained in jail for another eleven months. It is further contended that the appellant was on bail during trial, which liberty, he has not misused and from the date of his conviction, he had remained in jail for one year. It is next submitted that a single injury on the head though bone deep is not necessarily indicative of the fact that appellant had an intention to commit murder, which is sine qua non for recording conviction u/s 307 I.P.C. Rest of the two injuries sustained by the injured were simple in nature and, therefore, cumulatively there is dearth of cogent, reliable, convincing evidence that the appellant harbingered an intention to commit murder.

Learned AGA as well as counsel for the informant although supported the judgment of conviction but fairly conceded that the trial Judge nowhere referred the supplementary report while deciding the offence committed by the appellant.

Looking to the above argument and period of detention and the fact that the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future, I consider it appropriate to release the appellant on bail.

Let the appellant Rakesh be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Judge concerned in S.T. No. 596/2009 (State Vs. Gullu @ Dinesh and others) passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Saharanpur relating to crime no. 113 of 2009, under sections 307/34, 323/34, 324/34, 427, 506(2) I.P.C., P.S. Gagalhedi, District Saharanpur. As soon as personal and surety bonds are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by trial Judge concerned to be kept on the record of this appeal.

The appellant is allowed one month time to deposit entire amount of fine awarded to him.