Allahabad High Court
Rajendra And Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 28 August, 2014
Bench: Amar Saran, Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3947 of 2011
Appellant :- Rajendra And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Awadhesh Kumar Mishra,Noor Mohammad
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,S.A.Imam
Hon'ble Amar Saran,J.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants-appellants, as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri S.A.Imam, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record of the case.
It is argued by learned counsel for the appellants that as per the F.I.R. version there was a quarrel between the appellant Rajendra with the deceased Pappu because Mahraj Singh, the other deceased had sold some safeda trees to Pappu which he had subsequently sold to the appellant- Rajendra. It is argued that admittedly as per the prosecution case the labours who were cutting the trees had left the place of incident at 8.00 p.m. and had gone to the informant-Rajpal, brother of deceased Mahraj Singh and told that Mahraj Singh, Pappu, Rajendra and Ram Lal were taking liquor and quarrelling and further that Rajendra had told Pappu that he would not let him purchase the trees. It was further argued that at 10:00 p.m. when Rajpal returned to the spot along with Shiv Kailash P.W.3 he saw the two appellants Rajendra and Ramlal committing the murder of the deceased. It was further argued that the axe was not sent for forensic examination. Surendra, who was examined as P.W.4 was not named as witness in the F.I.R. Most important submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that they have been in jail since 12.8.2004, i.e. for a period of 10 and half years and there is no probability of an early hearing of appeal in near future.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. and Sri S.A.Imam, learned counsel for the complaint have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is a case of double murder and there was no reason for false implication of the appellant, but they could not dispute the long detention of the appellants in jail.
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are of the view that the appellants may now be allowed bail.
Let the appellants Rajendra and Ram Lal convicted and sentenced in S.T. No.1588 of 2004 (State Vs.Rajendra and another), Case crime no.141 of 2004, u/s 302 I.P.C. P.S. Simbhawali, district Ghaziabad. be released on bail on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.
However, the hearing of the appeal is expedited. Office is directed to prepare the paper book within three months and to list the appeal immediately thereafter for hearing before the appropriate Bench.
Order Date :- 28.8.2014
Rkb
