Mahendra vs State Of U.P.
2013 Latest Caselaw 3400 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 42
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7476 of 2010
 
Appellant :- Mahendra
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Babu Sharma,M C Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Vinod Prasad,J.

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.

Heard Sri Ram Babu Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant Mahendra in Criminal Appeal No. 7476 of 2010 and learned AGA for the State.

Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA is taken on record.

Sri Ram Babu Sharma learned counsel for the appellant on his own violation has declined to file any rejoinder affidavit and argued bail prayer of appellant Mahendra.

On the strength of the injuries sustained by the injured, which mostly are on upper limbs except one on the head and two or three on the face, it is contended that conviction of the appellant under Section 307 I.P.C. is not sustainable and the guilt will only be under Section 326 and sentence of life imprisonment for that offence is excessive and not commensurate with the guilt of the appellants. It is next urged that even if on the merits the appeal is dismissed the sentence which is wholly incommensurate has to be mollified.

Learned counsel further urged that appellant had already undergone one and half years of incarceration and chances of appeal being heard in near future is extremely remote.

Learned AGA arguing to the contrary submitted that there are fractures  of mandible, maxilla and the finger of the hand was amplitude and therefore, the manner in which injured was assaulted by the appellant, intention to commit murder can be inferred.

However, it is not disputed that had the two persons harbored on intention to commit murder that would have caused much graver and serious injuries to  be injured than what has been detected by the doctor. It is also not disputed that the appeal will take some years to be disposed of and appellant have not abused his bail as an under trial.

Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, we consider it appropriate to release appellant on bail.

Let Mahendra be enlarged on bail on their 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. 891 of 2009, under sections 307/34 and 326/34 I.P.C., P.S.  Sikanderabad, District Bulandshahar.

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 him.

Order Date :- 1.7.2013

Priyanka