Ramesh Chandra and Others vs State of U.P.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicants-Appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate on these applications for bail moved u/s 389 Code of Criminal Procedure along with the instant pending appeals.

Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 2011 has been preferred by Appellants-Ramesh Chandra, Pramod Kumar and Ram Prakash while Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2011 has been preferred by Appellant-Harnam Singh against judgment and order dated 18.01.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No. 785 of 2004 and Sessions Trial No. 322 of 2005 whereby they have been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201 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.

It comes out that Subhash Chandra (deceased) had returned his house in drunken condition; after changing clothes he had gone out of his house on 04.06.2004; his body was recovered on 06.06.2004; Smt. Poonam (PW)-3), who is said to be wife of the deceased and complainant of the case, had at the initial stage stated even in the report at the police station concerned that her husband Subhash Chandra is missing; later on, after recovery of dead body of Subhash Chandra from Sharda Canal the case was converted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and complicity of the Appellants revealed during the course of investigation.

Argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstance is not complete; in the present case the Appellants have been falsely roped in and in the postmortem report cause of death has been found to be strangulation, but there is no whisper in it with respect to material found in the stomach so as to say that the deceased had consumed liquor. It is stated that all the four Appellants were on bail during the course of trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to them. It is also stated that the appeals are of the year 2011 itself and there is no likelihood of the same being heard and decided in near future.

In the above facts and circumstances, we find it a fit case for bail.

Let Appellants-Ramesh Chandra, Pramod Kumar, Ram Prakash and Harnam Singh convicts of aforesaid sessions trials, be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bonds 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 photo copies of bonds and sureties filed by the Appellants to be preserved in the record maintained in this Court.