Ramu and Another vs State of U.P.

Raj Mani Chauhan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail of the accused appellants and perused the trial court''s record.

Both the applications have been moved by the appellants Ramu, Nanku, Ganesh Prasad and Sonu for bail in pending criminal appeals against the same judgment and order dated 18.05.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Gonda. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the accused appellants in both the criminal appeals are being disposed of by the common order.

The accused appellants were jointly tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Gonda in Sessions Trial No. 342 of 2006 Crime No. 146 of 2006: State v. Ramu and Ors. under Sections 147, 304/49 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Colonelganj, District Gonda whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge held the accused appellants guilty under Sections 304 read with Section 34 I.P.C., consequently he has convicted and sentenced each of the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/ - with default stipulation under the aforesaid section.

The Criminal Appeal No. 1727 of 2010 is admitted.

The submission of learned Counsel for the appellants is that as per version of the FIR, deceased Bhurey, son of complainant Manohar, had friendship with Usman Chikwa. Few days back prior to the date of occurrence the goat of Shreeram Dhobi had been stolen, but Usman Chikwa had named Bhurey for committing theft of goat. Consequently, Panchyat had been called upon by Shreeram Dhobi and others which was attended by Ganesh Prasasd, the Pradhan of the village and his son. Panchayat found Bhurey guilty for committing theft. Consequently, Panchayat awarded fine of Rs. 300/ - to accused Bhurey which was paid by the complainant to Shreeram Dhobi. The complainant has alleged that after the panchyat his son used to remain away from his house. On 10.08.2006 Bhurey had come to his house and left the house on the same day. In the morning of 12.08.2006 when the complainant and his family members were sleeping at 5.00 A.M., the complainant heard sound of falling something under the Guava tree, consequently, he went there and found that his son Bhurey had fallen down there who had sustained injuries. He took him to the Bengali doctor of Chachri market. The doctor had started his treatment. He remained under the treatment of Bengali doctor and unfortunately, he on 13.08.2006 breathed his lost.

The submission of learned Counsel for the appellants Ganesh Prasad and Sonu is that the Investigating Officer after investigation of the case submitted charge sheet only against Ramu and Nanku. Accused Ganesh Prasad, Sonu and Dharampal were summoned by the trial court u/s 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of statement of complainant (PW-1), Manohar. The evidence led by the prosecution against all the accused were same even then, the trial court held that the charges levelled against the accused Dharampal were not found to be proved. Consequently, he was acquitted by the trial court. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the complainant in his statement before the trial court has given eye account of the occurrence. Had he been eye witness of the occurrence, he would have named the accused in the FIR, but he did not name the accused in the FIR. The complainant did not lodge any report on 12.08.2006; rather he lodged the FIR after death of his son. In this case, the complainant has not assigned any motive to accused as to why they wanted to kill the deceased. In fact, whatever motive was there to any person it was Shreeram Dhobi whose goat was said to have been stolen by the deceased. The finding of the trial court is not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. Learned Counsel for the appellants further submits that the accused appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail. Therefore, they deserve to be released on bail.

Learned Counsel for the appellants Ramu and Nankau submits that the evidence against all the accused are similar. They were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail. Therefore, they also deserve to be released on bail.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

Considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that accused appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal, appellants may be released on bail.

Let accused-appellants Ramu, Nanku, Ganesh Prasad and Sonu be released on bail in the aforesaid Sessions Trial number during pendency of the appeal on their furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

However, the realization of fine is not stayed and the same be deposited by the appellants, if not already deposited, within 30 days from the date of their release, failing which this order of bail shall stand cancelled.