Allahabad High Court
Sushil Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. on 29 May, 2018
Bench: Shashi Kant Gupta, Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 32
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2491 of 2017
Appellant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Dixit
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Virendra Singh Chauhan
Along with
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2778 of 2017
Appellant :- Ram Swaroop Pandey
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Dixit,Jai Narain
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Along with
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2399 of 2017
Appellant :- Daddu Singh @ Pushpendra Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Raghuvansh Misra,Rahul Misra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Virendra Singh Chauhan
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Ref: Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 164275 of 2017, 183670 of 2017 and 155456 of 2017.
Counter affidavits on behalf of State have been filed in all the connected appeals, let these documents be taken on record.
The prayer for bail of the appellants is being heard together and disposed of by a common order.
Heard Sri Amit Kumar Dixit, Sri Rahul Mishra and Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Virendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA for the State on the bail applications of the appellants who have been convicted in S.T. No. 10 of 2015, Case Crime No. 108 of 2014, under Section 302 I.P.C. police station Naraini District Banda and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine.
Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. The incident of the alleged incident is alleged to have taken place in the intervening night of 26/27.07.2014 when the deceased was sleeping in front of his house on a cot. In the morning, when the father of deceased woke up to ease himself, he found his son dead and the cot was soaked with blood. The F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons making no allegation against any person, however, after fifteen days of the alleged incident an application was moved to the police station concerned stating therein that he had come to know the name of persons who had committed the murder of the deceased and expressed suspicion against Tulsa, Ram Swaroop Pandey, Onkar, Kedar Singh, Daddu Singh and Badhiya @ Badri and prayer was made for taking legal action against them. Again on 12.8.2014, an application was moved before the Superintendent of Police, Banda stating therein that the local police was not giving any heed in the matter and prayed that the investigation of the case be transferred to some other Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that there is no cogent and convincing evidence against the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that on 1.11.2014 and 11.10.2014 trishul and danda were recovered from the pointing out of appellants Daddu @ Pushpendra Singh and Badhiya Yadav @ Badri @ Ramdas Yadav, respectively. It has further been submitted that recovery of trishul and danda was made after more than three months from the date of alleged incident and no blood stains were found on danda and trishul. It has further been submitted that the false recovery was planted by the police, therefore, the alleged weapons cannot be connected with the alleged offence. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the alleged recovery was made from an open place but without any public witness. It has been further submitted that the evidence of last seen witness is not believable as they did not disclose the name of accused persons immediately after panchayatnama and filing of the first information report. It has been further submitted that the prosecution could not prove the motive to commit the murder of the deceased. The appellants were on bail during trial and they had not misused the liberty for bail. There is no likelihood of early hearing of the appeal in near future and the appellants Sushil Kumar Pandey and Ram Swaroop Pandey are in jail since 12.4.2017 and appellants Daddu Singh @ Pushpendra Singh and Badhiya Yadav @ Badri @ Ramdas Yadav are in jail since 13.4.2017.
Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and supported the trial court's judgment.
Having given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail.
Let the appellants Sushil Kumar Pandey, Ram Swaroop Pandey, Daddu Singh @ Pushpendra Singh and Badhiya Yadav @ Badri @ Ramdas Yadav convicted and sentenced in S.T. No. 10 of 2015, Case Crime No. 108 of 2014, under Section 302 I.P.C. police station Naraini District Banda be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The photocopies of the bonds so furnished be transmitted to this Court to be kept on record of the appeal.
On deposit of 50% of fine imposed on the appellants within a period of one month, the remaining fine shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal.
The bail application is allowed.
Office is directed to prepare paper books and list this appeal for hearing in due course.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018/Gss
