Sumit Shukla vs State of U.P.

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate on this application moved u/s 389 Code of Criminal Procedure for bail in pending appeal.

These four criminal appeals have been preferred by Appellant namely Sumit Shukla, Satgur Prasad, Ram Chandra and Amit Tewari alias Bauwa against judgment and order dated 03.03.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 7, Sitapur in Sessions Trial No. 546 of 2000 arising out of Case Crime No. 1227 of 1999, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 I.P.C. whereby they have been convicted under the aforesaid sections and sentenced for maximum term of life imprisonment with fine stipulation. 0

We have gone through the judgment of the court below as well as lower court record.

As it comes out that one Amit alias Pinkoo was done to death while fire being made upon him by one Rupesh Chaudhary who during course of the trial died and thus the Appellants have been convicted with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C.

It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that only role assigned to the Appellants is to the effect that they had caught hold of the deceased wherein Rupesh Chaudhary one of the co-accused had fired upon him from a very close range and the deceased after receiving fire arm injury fell down on the road where the incident had taken place and was taken to the hospital by two constables where Amit alias Pinkoo was declared to be brought dead.

The prosecution in support of its case has examined various witnesses including the complainant, PW-4, father of the deceased, who is not an eye witness but had narrated the story in the F.I.R. on the basis of information received by him. The other eye witnesses who have been examined have turned hostile.

Argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that the conviction is based only on the sole testimony of PW-4, the complainant. It is stated that the 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 appeal is of the year 2011 itself and there is no likelihood of the same being heard and decided in near future.

In view of the above, we find it to be a fit case for granting bail.

Let Appellants Sumit Shukla, Satgur Prasad, Ram Chandra and Amit Tewari alias Bauwa, convicts of aforesaid sessions trial, be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond 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 these Court photocopies of bond and sureties filed by the Appellants to be preserved in the record maintained here.