Shyamu and Others vs State of U.P.

Naheed Ara Moonis, J.—The learned Counsel for the Appellants has filed supplementary affidavit, which is taken on record, stating therein that the Appellant Suneel Kumar wasn''t present at the time of pronouncement of the judgment in the Session TrialNo. 666 of 2008 and later on he surrendered on 25.3.2011 and was taken into custody, since then he is in jail. 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 23.3.2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 1, Mathura, in Session Trial No. 666 of 2008, State of U.P. v. Shyamu and Ors., arising out of case crime No. 802 of 2007, under Sections 323/34, 336/34, 325/34, 308/34 IPC, P.S. Vrindavan, District Mathura, convicting and sentencing the Appellants to undergo for six months imprisonment u/s 323/34, two months imprisonment u/s 336/34, two years imprisonment u/s 325/34 and four years imprisonment u/s 308/34.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that since the Appellant No. 4, Suneel Kumar was in service in the State of Punjab, therefore he surrendered before the court on 25.3.2011 and was taken into custody on the basis of an application moved by him before the court below, the court below had passed the order for taking him into custody and it was directed that the bail warrants be prepared.

It is further contended that there was a cross case in which the Appellants'' sidehad also sustained injuries. There is no explanation of the injuries of the Appellant Raju, and the complainant''s side had also been convicted by the court below. General role of causing injury with lathi-danda has been assigned to all the accused Appellants. Two persons are said to have sustained injuries. The Appellants were on bail during the trial and they had not misused the liberty of bail.

Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the Appellants and supported the judgment of the trial court.

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 subject to the condition that they will not misuse the liberty of bail or indulge in any offence, failing which it is open for the complainant to move an application for cancellation of bail.

Let the Appellants, Shyamu, Raju, Ramu and Suneel Kumar, convicted and sentenced in Session Trial No. 666 of 2008, State of U.P. v. Shyamu and Ors., arising out of case crime No. 802 of 2007, under Sections 323/34, 336/34, 325/34, 308/34 IPC, P.S. Vrindavan, District Mathura, 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.