Allahabad High Court
Jharkhandi Alias Ajay vs State Of U.P. on 15 May, 2013
Bench: Vinod Prasad, Anjani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 374 CR.P.C. No. - 7074 of 2010
Appellant :- Jharkhandi Alias Ajay
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- A.P.Tewari,S.S.Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate,Sanjay Kumar Pandey
CONNECTED WITH
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 374 CR.P.C. No. - 7676 of 2010
Appellant :- Jhinak
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- A.P. Tewari,Mohd. Shoeb Khan,S.S. Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Sanjay Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Vinod Prasad,J.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.
Jhinak and Jharkhandi @ Ajay have been convicted in S.T. No. 367 of 2006 and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 I.P.C. apart from lessor sentences and fine.
It has been submitted that it was a case of a sudden fight which took place as a result of the motor cycle of the deceased striking the shop of one of the accused. The accused are said to have assaulted the deceased with fists, lathis and belts and a single fatal injury on the back head was sustained by the deceased while the other injuries are simple in nature. The injury on the back of the head could have been caused as a result of a fall and under the circumstances the case would not travel beyond Section 304 (1) I.P.C.
As regards appellant Jhinak, it has been submitted that there is further allegation of the recovery of the mobile phone of the deceased at the pointing out of the said appellant. Co-accused Dharam Dev has been granted bail and on his pointing out gold chain and gold ring of the deceased was recovered. Thus case of Jhinak is one of the parity with Dharam Dev.
As regards Jharkhandi @ Ajay, it has been urged that he was not named in the FIR and his name was introduced in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made by Pawan Kewat an alleged eye witness who claims to know the appellant since long before the incident and that Ajay was also identified in a test identification parade held more than two months after incident and after several dates in the proceedings in the Court below.
The learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but has not been able to point out anything clinching as regards the factual submissions.
Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to bail.
Let appellants, Jhinak and Jhakhandi @ Ajay 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. 367 of 2006, under sections 302, 379 and 411 I.P.C., P.S. Belipar, District Gorakhpur.
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 appellants are allowed one month time to deposit entire amount of fine awarded to them.
Order Date :- 15.5.2013
Priyanka
