Virendra and Another vs State of U.P.

Naheed Ara Moonis, J.

Admit,

The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the Appellants against the judgment and order dated 1.9.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 5 Budaun whereby the Appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Sections 307/34 IPC vide Sessions Trial No. 606 of 2007. In default of payment, the Appellants were directed to serve out three months further imprisonment.

According to the prosecution case, Appellants came at the residence of the complainant and borrowed Rs. 150/-. After some time the Appellants came to the complainant after drinking liquor and began to hurl abusive and vituperative languages. The complainant proscribed the Appellants from using the filthy words. The Appellants were infuriated and lost their temper as a result of which they fired from their respective weapons. The complainant was hit by the bullet of the Appellant No. 1 Virendra . On the alarm and shouting of the opposite party No. 2 a number of persons gathered and the Appellants disappeared threatening the complainant.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that it is a case of single fire. There is great inconsistency in the prosecution version. The alleged witnesses are yesmen of the complainant. Specific role has been assigned to Virendra, the Appellant No. 1. The applicant No. 2 has only been roped because he is said to have accompanied with the Appellant No. 1. The Appellants were on bail during trial. They had not misused the liberty of the bail. There is no possibility of appeal being heard in near future.

Per contra learned AGA contended that the incident was narrated in a natural manner. There is no embellishment in the prosecution version. Learned Counsel for the Appellant could not point out any illegality or vulnerability in the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. In case the Appellants are released on bail, they will misuse the liberty of the bail. There is active participation of the Appellants.

Having considered the submission advanced by learned Counsel for the parties without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to Bharat who has not been assigned any specific role. Let the Appellant Bharat convicted and sentenced by Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 1.9.2010 in Sessions Trial No. 606 of 2007 u/s 304/34 IPC Police Station Faijganj Behta District Badaun be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concern. The prayer for interim bail of Virendra shall be considered after receipt of lower Court''s record.