Rameshwar vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 12662 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 47
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4978 of 2006
 

 
Appellant :- Rameshwar
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- S.N. Jaiswal,S.K. Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Connected with
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4187 of 2006
 
Appellant :- Situ @ Satendra
 
Respondent :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- G.S. Hajela,Jag Narayan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Raj Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

1. The above criminal appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 14.07.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-4, Mathura in Sessions Trial No. 733 of 2004 arising out of Case Crime No. 70 of 2004, under Sections 394, 302, 412 IPC and in Sessions Trial No. 686 of 2004 arising out of Case Crime No. 72 of 2004, under Sections 307 IPC and 25 of Arms Act, Police Station - Farah, District - Mathura; whereby the accused appellants Rameshwar and Situ @ Satendra have been convicted for ten years rigorous imprisonment under Section 394 IPC alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/-, each, and in default of payment of fine to undergo one year's additional imprisonment; sentenced to life imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- each, under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo three year's additional imprisonment; sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, under Section 412 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo one year's additional imprisonment; sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.3,000/- each, under Section 307 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine to undergo six month's additional imprisonment. The accused appellant Situ @ Satendra has also been convicted under Section 25 of Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year alongwith fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one month's additional imprisonment. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

2. As per prosecution case, a written report was made by the first informant Ramesh Verma, who happens to be the cousin of the deceased addressed to Chawki Incharge, Ol, District- Mathura, stating that his cousin Dr. Saudan Singh was a resident of Dharmpura, Police Station- Farah, District- Mathura and was presently posted as Veterinary Officer in the Veterinary Hospital at Akola (Agra). On account of some domestic work he has come to his village on 27.05.2004 and left early in the morning on 28.05.2004 at about 6.30 on a new motorcycle (Bajaj Caliber Udi Baba Slatey Colour) of which registration number had not been received so far whereafter the informant gathered knowledge of the brutal murder of his cousin at about 7.15 in the morning. Certain unknown persons allegedly had assaulted the deceased with sharp edged weapon on the eastern patri of Fatehpur Sikri Rajwah near the open agricultural field of Sri Prakash Jat. On receiving such information the informant came to the place of occurrence where the dead-body of his cousin was lying on the patri adjoining the canal. From his pocket Rs. 3135/- cash, a Titan watch, spectacles, plain diary and three pens were found. As per the informant his cousin had been done to death under some controversy due to enmity. The accused after committing the offence had taken away the motorcycle which contains his passbook, cheque book, personal diary and some medicines. On the basis of such information a First Information Report came to be lodged on 28.05.2004 at 8.50 AM (Ex.Ka.2). The Investigating Officer came to the place of occurrence and collected blood stained soil and plain earth from the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer also recovered titan watch, spectacles, three pens. Inquest proceedings were also undertaken at 9.45 in the morning and the inquest witnesses opined that the deceased has been done to death by sharp edged weapon and to ascertain the exact cause of death the postmortem be conducted. The inquest report also mentions that apparels worn by the deceased alongwith plain diary, titan watch, spectacles and cash amounting to Rs. 3135/- was also recovered alongwith three pens. The body was, accordingly, sealed and sent for postmortem.

3. The postmortem has been conducted on 28.05.2004 at 4.15 PM. As per the autopsy surgeon the time of death was approximately half a day. The deceased was about fifty year old person with good built and rigor mortis was present in upper and lower extremities. Deceased had died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of following ante-mortem injuries :-

"(i) Incised wound 8 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep on right side head 2 cm from right ear.

(ii) Incised wound 7 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep on right side head 6 cm from left ear.

(iii) Incised wound 3 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on left side neck 1 cm below left ear.

(iv) Incised wound 3 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on right angle of mandible underlying mandible cut.

(v) Incised wound 7 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on right side neck 3 cm below right ear, underlying neck vessels and third cervical vertebral cut.

(vi) Incised wound 5 cm x 2.5 cm x bone deep on right side of neck, 2 cm below injury no. 5, underlying neck vessels and fourth cervical vetebral.

(vii) Incised wound 5 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on top of right shoulder.

(viii) Incised wound 4 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on outer aspect of right upper arm.

(ix) Incised wound 6 cm x 2.5 cm x 6 cm deep on back of right wrist, underlying bone cut.

(x) Incised wound 10 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on back of right hand, underlying bone cut.

(xi) Incised wound 8 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on back of left wrist joint, underlying bone cut.

(xii) Amputation with cut at level of proximal phalynx of left little finger, injury ring and left thumb and separated parts present."

4. On 01.06.2004, certain information was received from an informer on the basis of which the two accused were apprehended by the police at 4.40 PM and the motorcycle, which allegedly had been looted by the accused, was recovered from them. From the custody of accused appellant Situ @ Satendra a country made pistol was also recovered with a cartridge stuck in it. The two accused appellants fired on the police in order to save themselves. Since the looted motorcycle of the deceased was recovered from the accused appellants, who fired on the police and were arrested alongwith country made firearm as such two FIRs were registered as Case Crime No. 72 of 2004 under Section 307 IPC as well as Case Crime No. 73 of 2004 under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The witnesses to the recovery are all police persons. There are no independent witness to the recovery of motorcycle.

5. On 01.06.2004 itself the police recovered a blood stained baanka (sharp edged instrument) on the pointing out of the accused appellants from bushes adjoining a canal at 7.10 PM. Apart from the police personnel there is an independent witness to this recovery of Sultan Singh (PW-6).

6. Investigation proceeded in the matter with recording of statement of witnesses on the basis of which separate charge-sheets came to be submitted in the matter. Charge-sheet in Case Crime No. 70 of 2004 was submitted on 17.06.2004 and in other two cases charge-sheets were submitted on 03.06.2004. Permission of the District Magistrate was also obtained on 14.06.2004 under the Arms Act to proceed in the matter. The concerned Magistrate took cognizance on the charge-sheet and committed the cases to the court of Sessions where it got registered as Sessions Trial No. 733 of 2004 (State vs. Situ @ Satendra) under Sections 302, 394, 412 IPC as well as Sessions Trial No. 686 of 2004 under Section 307 IPC against both the accused and against accused Situ @ Satendra under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Charges were read out to the accused appellants, who denied their implication and demanded trial.

7. In order to prove its case the prosecution has produced following documentary evidence:-

"1. FIR dated 28.05.2004 as Ex.Ka.2

2. FIR dated 01.06.2004 as Ex.Ka.25

3. Written Report dated 28.05.2004 as Ex.Ka.1

4. Recovery Memo of Tamancha, empty & live cartridges, motorcycle and arrest of accused as Ex.Ka.18

5. Recovery Memo of blood stained & plain soil as Ex.Ka.11

6. Recovery Memo of pen, spectacle, watch and blood stained diary as Ex.Ka.12

7. Recovery memo of blood stained iron baanka

8. Postmortem Report dated 28.05.2004 as Ex.Ka.14

9. Report of Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala dated 19.02.2005 as Ex.Ka.27

10. Panchayatnama dated 28.05.2004 as Ex.Ka.4"

8. In addition to the above, the prosecution has produced the informant Ramesh Verma as PW-1. He has supported the prosecution case as per which the deceased had come to his village on the previous evening and had returned at about 6.30 on a new motorcycle for his place of work. At about 7.30 this witness came to know that some unknown persons had assaulted the deceased with sharp edged weapon and his dead-body is lying on the eastern patri of the canal in front of the field of Sri Prakash Jat. The deceased was bleeding and an amount of Rs.3135/- alongwith three pens, spectacles and watch etc were available with the deceased. However, his motorcycle which had his pass book, cheque book, and personal diary etc had been looted by the miscreants who assaulted the deceased. PW-1 has been cross-examined and he has admitted that he did not know the accused from before. He also stated that there was no enmity of the deceased with the accused as per his information. He stated that since motorcycle was not available at the place of occurrence, therefore, he had specified in the written report that the miscreants had looted the motorcycle. The deceased had purchased the motorcycle about 2-3 years prior to the incident. He (PW-1) has proved the written report. He has also stated that witnesses Govind Singh and Sahab Singh are from his village and also from his caste. House of Sahab Singh was about 100 meters whereas house of Govind was 200-250 meters from his house. He stated that after cremation these two persons came and informed him about the incident. Since such disclosure was not made earlier, therefore, in the written report such facts have not been mentioned. He also stated that after about 3-4 days of the incident he came to know about recovery of the motorcycle. This witness has denied the suggestion that the two witnesses of fact namely PW-1 and PW-2 are his pocket witnesses and they have made false deposition on account of family relations. In the further cross-examination of PW-1 he has admitted that he lived separately from the deceased and they have separate houses. As per him the deceased had come at about 6.00-7.00 PM on 27.05.2004 to his village and he had not met him while he left early in the morning. He specifically stated that deceased had no enmity with anyone and the recital in that regard in the written report is on apprehensions. He stated that on arrival at the place of occurrence he found none present and certain persons arrived only after his arrival at the place of incident. Those persons who came had no clue about the incident and could not furnish any detail of the incident.

9. PW-2 is Govind Singh, who claims that at about 6.15 in the morning on 28.05.2004 he was going alongwith Sahab Singh (PW-3) looking for buffalo for its purchase. He claims that when he reached in front of the field of Prakash he heard screams and saw the two accused assaulting the deceased with baanka. On seeing the witness, the accused fled on the motorcycle of deceased. He found the deceased to have died. Out of fear PW-2 went to his relative's place and there he informed about the incident to the brother-in-law of the deceased. He had not met anyone from the house of the deceased till then. This witness was suspecting threats and that is why he claims that he had not participated in the cremation of the deceased. In the examination-in-chief this witness claims that he informed the family members of the deceased about the incident at about 9.00-10.00 PM on the same day. In the cross-examination PW-2 has stated that his maternal grandfather lives in Dharmpura and he has inherited his estate. He belongs to Jat community from which the deceased also belonged. He stated that his statement was recorded at about 8.00-9.00 in the morning next to the date of incident. This witness, however, did not know the name of person from whom he had to buy the buffalo neither he indulges in sale or purchase of cattle. He had discussed with PW-3 about purchase of buffalo 2-3 days back. Since they had to get the buffalo, therefore, they were going on foot although he had motorcycle and bicycle available at his house. On the date of incident this witness claims to have gone to the house of brother-in-law of the deceased and informed such facts to him. He claims to have informed the family members of the incident at 9. It is also stated that there is no enmity with the deceased. This witness has stated that he was at a distance of 10-12 steps from the place of occurrence when the incident occurred and he heard the screams. He was a little before the place of occurrence, however, he has not visited the spot with the Investigating Officer. He claims that the accused saw him but said nothing and left with the motorcycle of the deceased. As per him both the accused assaulted deceased with baanka for 5-6 times. On hearing the screams he had moved 5-6 steps further and from there he saw the incident and on seeing him the two accused neither threatened him nor tried to attack him but merely left with the motorcycle. He claims to have decided not to go to Shahjadpur but instead left for Jhurawai. He denied the suggestion that he is related to the deceased and is giving a false testimony. This witness has further stated that there was nobody present in the near-by field.

10. PW-3 is Sahab Singh who also was accompanying PW-2 and has supported the prosecution case. His testimony is similar to that of PW-2. He claims to have been interrogated by the Investigating Officer at about 10.00 AM on 29.05.2004 in the room of the deceased. This witness also claims to have seen the two accused assaulting the deceased with a baanka. He claims that on account of fear he could neither save the deceased nor raised any protest. He stated that though the thought of informing the incident kept occurring to him but due to fear he did nothing. He admits that as he had crossed the Ol police chawki within territorial limits of which his village situated but he did not stop to lodge the report. He also did not inform anyone else who crossed him or met him. This witness has admitted that he had not informed of the incident to the workers who were engaged in the adjoining field. He also crossed the Seth Singh Dharmshala and the police station but informed none about the incident.

11. PW-4 is the Head Constable, who has proved chik FIR of case Crime No. 70 of 2004.

12. PW-5 is SI K.P. Singh, beat incharge Jait, who was posted as SI at the place of incident. This witness has proved the inquest as well as police papers accompanying the dead-body for postmortem. He has also proved the recovery of apparels and other items on the body of the deceased.

13. PW-6 is Sultan Singh, who is the resident of Village Panjauli, Police Station- Sadabad District Hathras who claims that he was going to Dharmpura on a tempo. He found the police jeep parked with three inmates present including the two accused. It was about 6.45 in the evening. He claims that on asking of the police person he accompanied him and in his presence the accused took out the blood stained baanka. The recovery has, accordingly, been proved by this witness.

14. PW-7 is the autopsy surgeon, who has proved the postmortem report. As per him all injuries on the deceased were caused by sharp edged weapon and the deceased could have died at about 6.00 AM on 28.05.2004. In the cross-examination this witness has reiterated that the injuries on the deceased were caused by sharp edged weapon. He also stated that fecal matter was present in the large intestine of the deceased.

15. PW-8 is the Investigating Officer, who has proved the police papers and also proved the manner in which the investigation has been conducted in the case. He admitted that certain cuttings were made at serial no. 6 in the case diary on account of wrong entries made by him earlier which were scored off. He stated that the second parcha was submitted on 29.05.2004 after investigation was completed for the day. This witness did not remember the time and place where he recorded the statement of witness Govind Singh. He also admitted that the statement of Govind Singh about going to Jhurawai has not been mentioned in his statement. He has proved the arrest of the accused as also the recovery of motorcycle. He stated that witness Sultan Singh and Nem Singh had arrived on the next day of the arrest of accused and they were interrogated at the police station. He also stated that the accused disclosed him that they have hidden the weapon of assault and provided it to the police. It is admitted that no recovery memo in respect of receipt of Rs. 3135/- was prepared. This witness has been confronted with parcha no. IIA in the case diary which was prepared on 29.05.2004 itself after the submission of the second parcha. This witness has clarified that additional proceedings since had been undertaken, therefore, a new parcha was submitted. This witness has denied the suggestion that additions were made later in the police diary so as to falsely fabricate material to implicate the accused.

16. PW-9 is SI K.P. Singh, who has prepared the site plan.

17. PW-10 is Constable Munna Lal, who has proved the GD entry in respect of recovery of firearm from the accused.

18. The incriminating material collected during the course of trial against the accused were confronted to them for recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In addition to the denial of accusations made both the accused stated that they were working out/exercising in front of the Dharmshala and the police in order to solve the case has falsely implicated them on the basis of fabricated evidence.

19. On the basis of evidence led by the prosecution as well as the statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the trial court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt and has consequently convicted the accused under various sections of IPC and Arms Act.

20. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence the two appellants have preferred the instant appeal.

21. Since on the previous occasion, none had appeared for the accused appellants, therefore, vide order dated 05.04.2023 we appointed Ms. Mohini Jaiswal to appear as Amicus Curiae in the case.

22. Submission of Ms. Jasiwal is that both the accused appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated by the police only in order to conclude the investigation in the present matter. It is submitted that absolutely no motive for commissioning of offence has been placed on record by the prosecution nor the genesis of the incident has been explained. It is urged that the cash amount as well as watch etc of the deceased were not taken by the miscreants which clearly proves that the motive of commissioning of offence was not to loot but to avenge some enmity with the deceased. Attention of the court is invited to the recital in the FIR wherein also the purpose of murder allegedly was to avenge the enmity and not commit loot.

23. Learned counsel with reference to the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 states that neither these two witnesses are reliable nor their conduct is natural and even their presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful.

24. Learned Amicus Curiae further submits that the two witnesses of fact are at best chance witnesses and, therefore, their testimony is neither credible nor reliable. She further submitted that recovery is not proved. Submission is that the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the present matter without there being any evidence on record and, therefore, the appeal is liable to succeed.

25. Learned AGA for the State, on the other hand, submits that the testimony of two eye-witnesses are credible and reliable and, therefore, the conviction based upon it merits no interference.

26. We have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the records including the records of trial court as well as the case diary.

27. The case of the prosecution as per FIR is that the deceased was returning to his place of work at about 6.30 AM on the date of incident when some unknown persons assaulted him with sharp edged weapon causing the death of deceased. As per the FIR none has seen the incident. PW-1 has stated that he received the information of the incident from his cousin Rajendra Pal but it is not clarified as to how and in what manner Rajendra Pal came to know of the incident. The First Information Report clearly records that cash, pen, spectacles, watch etc of the deceased was with him at the time of his death. It was only the motorcycle which allegedly had been looted by the two accused. PW-1 has been specifically questioned on the aspect of enmity of deceased with anyone but his reply is in the negative. No evidence has otherwise surfaced on record which may demonstrate that the two accused appellants had any motive to commit the murder of the deceased.

28. The prosecution has not established the genesis of the incident itself inasmuch as it is not clear as to achieve which objective the deceased has been done to death.

29. The only reason as per prosecution to commit the offence was the loot of the motorcycle. This reason is not very convincing for two reasons. First and foremost the recovery of motorcycle from the accused appellants is not supported by the testimony of any independent witnesses. Secondly, we find it somewhat difficult to accept the prosecution case about loot of motorcycle being the object of ghastly murder when the two accused were found roaming with the motorcycle of the deceased in the same area just two days after the incident. In the event the two accused wanted loot of the motorcycle the natural conduct on their part would be to flee from the place or at least not be seen moving on this very motorcycle. The recovery of motorcycle, therefore, is doubtful as also the prosecution case that it was this loot which was the object for committing the offence by the two accused.

30. Though we have found the motive to be doubtful in the present case but since the prosecution case is based upon the ocular testimony of two witnesses, we proceed to examine their testimony, particularly as the law is settled that in the event of convincing ocular testimony conviction can be recorded even in the absence of any motive.

31. PW-2 and PW-3 are at best chance witnesses inasmuch as their presence at about 6.30 in the morning at the place of occurrence was not in due observance of their daily routine or movements. These two witnesses claim that they intended to buy buffalo and in that connection they were going to Shahjadpur. The testimony of these two witnesses are somewhat anomalous. Though these two witnesses claim to have seen the incident but they did not inform anyone of the incident immediately thereafter. It has come in their testimony that they crossed the police station as also the police beat of their village yet they did not lodge a report with the police. The deceased admittedly was known to these two witnesses who are from the same village. Their houses were at a distance of 100 meters and 200-250 meters from the house of the deceased. Being close neighbors of the deceased and coming from the same caste and community if a ghastly incident of murder takes place in their presence it is expected that they would try to inform the incident to the either family members, forthwith, or to the police. Their conduct in not doing either of it raises a doubt. There is other compelling reason for us to doubt the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3. We have perused the case diary. From a perusal of which it transpires that the Investigating Officer submitted parcha no. 2 on 29.05.2004 apparently on conclusion of investigation on the date. There is yet another parcha on a separate page of the same date, i.e. 29.05.2004 marked as II-A, which records the statement of PW-2 and PW-3. This statement is allegedly recorded on 10.35 in the morning. We find it somewhat difficult to accept this version of prosecution inasmuch as the Investigating Officer ordinarily files a parcha on a particular date after he completes the proceedings of that day. The second parcha had already been filed on 29.05.2004. The recording of another parcha as parcha no. IIA on the same day seems doubtful at 10.15 in the morning itself. There is no reason for the Investigating Officer to have submitted a first parcha even before 10 in the morning. The subsequent addition of two pages in the case diary so as to record statement of PW-2 and PW-3, therefore, raises a question with regard to timely recording of their statements during the course of investigation.

32. There is another startling fact which remains unexplained by the prosecution. While going through the case diary we find existence of parcha no. 6 which records the statement of wife of the deceased. As per the wife of the deceased she was with the deceased and both of them were in fact coming to the village when the incident occurred. Two boys allegedly intercepted the bike and committed the offence. The statement of the wife of deceased is extremely important particularly when she states that she was with the deceased when the incident occurred and had seen the incident with her own eyes. Even in the charge-sheet we find that Smt. Maya Devi wife of late Saudan Singh is a witness proposed to be relied upon by the prosecution. However, during the course of trial Smt. Maya Devi has not been produced. We are at a loss to understand as to why the prosecution has not produced Smt. Maya Devi during trial when she was allegedly present with the deceased as a pillion rider on a motorcycle at the time of commissioning of the offence. The manner in which the prosecution has withheld the testimony of the wife of the deceased raises a serious doubt upon the credibility of the prosecution case itself.

33. The unnatural conduct of PW-2 and PW-3 as well as the withholding of the prime evidence of wife of the deceased who claims to be present at the place of occurrence raises a serious question on the credibility of the prosecution case. Even otherwise we do not find the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 to be convincing or reliable particularly when they are chance witnesses. The only other material against the accused appellants is recovery of the motorcycle. This recovery is also not proved inasmuch as there are no independent witness to such recovery. We have already expressed doubts upon the aspect of recovery of motorcycle on the ground that the conduct of accused in roaming around with the motorcycle two days after murder of the owner is otherwise not natural.

34. So far as recovery of baanka is concerned the only independent witness to prove it is PW-6, who is a resident of a different district and his presence at the place of recovery is not explained. We otherwise find serious contradictions with respect to the claim of such recovery inasmuch as the prosecution alleges that the accused were arrested on 01.06.2004 and on the same evening the baanka was taken out by the accused from the bushes in an open place. The aspect of arrest and the recovery as per prosecution is of same day, however, the Investigating Officer in his testimony has stated that witness Sultan had arrived on the next day of the arrest of accused. The next day of the arrest of accused would be 02.06.2004 whereas the recovery of baanka from the open field is shown to be of 01.06.2004. In such circumstances the recovery of blood stained baanka from the accused appellants is also found doubtful.

35. Upon evaluation of the evidence aforesaid we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

36. So far as the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the court below is concerned we find that neither motive in respect of commissioning of offence nor even the credibility of testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 has been subjected to careful scrutiny particularly when they were chance witnesses. The testimony of the widow of the deceased, who had entirely different version to contend, has entirely been omitted from consideration. The anomaly in the statement of Investigation Officer with regard to recovery of baanka has also not been given due consideration. The manner in which the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 were added vide a separate parcha, by the Investigating Officer, and the unnatural conduct on their part has also escaped the attention of the court below. In such circumstances the finding of guilt returned by the court below is reversed.

37. For the reasons and discussions held above, these two appeals succeed and are allowed. The judgment and order dated 14.07.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-4, Mathura in Sessions Trial No. 733 of 2004 arising out of Case Crime No. 70 of 2004, under Sections 394, 302, 412 IPC and in Sessions Trial No. 686 of 2004 arising out of Case Crime No. 72 of 2004, under Sections 307 IPC and 25 of Arms Act, Police Station - Farah, District - Mathura is set aside.

38. Both the accused-appellants, who are reported to be in jail, shall be set at liberty, forthwith, unless they are wanted in any other case, subject to compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C.

39. We record our appreciations for the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. Mohini Jaiswal, who will be entitled to her fee from the High Court Legal Services Authority.

 
Order Date:- 25.04.2023
 
RA
 

 

 
(Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi, J.)         (Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.)