Jai Ram & Another vs State Of U.P.
2013 Latest Caselaw 1337 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 374 CR.P.C. No. - 318 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Jai Ram & Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Brijendra Kumar Ojha,Anil Kumar Yadav
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Vinod Prasad,J.

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Yadav assisted by Sri Brijendra Kumar Ojha learned Advocate for  the two appellants, namely, Jayram and Nanhe and learned AGA for the State.

After hearing Sri Anil Kumar Yadav counsel for the appellant,  what we find is that so far as two appellants, nalmely, Jay Ram and Nanhe are concerned that they were not named in the  FIR in their complicity surfaced during the investigation in the confessional statement of a third accused Asha Ram, who later on was declared to be juvenile. 

In the identification parade Jay Ram was identified by only one of the witness whereas Nanhe was identified by two witnesses. 

In view of the aforesaid, since we find that against Nanhe, there are two good identifications, we do not find it appropriate it to release him on bail.  His bail prayer stands rejected.

Since again Jay Ram there is only single identification , in our opinion it is not sufficient to maintain his conviction and so that appellant, Jay Ram be released on bail.

Let the appellant Jay Ram be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of rupees one lakh and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Judge concerned in S.T. No.810 of 2010, under sections 396 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur.

As soon as personal and surety bonds are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by trial Judge concerned to be kept on the record of this appeal.

The appellant is allowed one month time to deposit entire amount of fine awarded to them.

Order Date :- 25.4.2013

Priyanka