CRLA/166/2023
2023 Latest Caselaw 865 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                            COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures

                                  CRLA No.166 of 2023
                                  With
                                  IA/1/2023 (Application for bail and suspension of sentence)
                                  Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mrs. Krishi Shukla Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant.

Mr. A.K. Sah, learned Deputy Advocate General along with Ms. Mamta Joshi, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Admit.

Summon the LCR.

Learned counsel for the applicant presses the bail application on the following grounds:-

1) That the present appellant-Pawan Singh has been falsely implicated by the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar.

2) She submits that he was arrested on 16.12.2015 and remained so till he was released on bail on 07.10.2016. As such, after his release on 07.10.2016 till the conclusion of trial, he was on bail and has never misused the same.

3) It has been argued, that there is no direct evidence available against the present applicant to convict him for the offences under Section 307 of the IPC.

4) Lastly, it has been submitted that Pawan Singh would be entitled to be granted parity to the bail application, which has been granted to one of the convict persons - Karan Singh.

The aspect pertaining to the false implication of the present applicant in the commission of the offence for which he has been convicted, in fact, while considering the bail, this Court should refrain itself from making any observation on merit because it may prejudice the appellants proceedings itself. But, still on the perusal of the prosecution's evidence, which has been considered by the learned Trial Court, the observations have been made by the Court while examining the witnesses and, particularly, that as observed in paragraph no.22, that the present applicant did not had a nexus in commission of offence which was complained of for engaging himself in commission of offence under Section 307 of the IPC.

The relevant finding in relation to the said effect has been recorded by the learned Trial Court, in its judicial analysis made in paragraph no.40 of the judgment, where the offence under Section 307 of IPC was found to have been established to have been committed by the present applicant.

The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant, that when the applicant was released on bail during the course of trial and he has never misused the same, that cannot be a common yardstick which is to be adopted for consideration of grant of bail at the appellate stage. For the reason being, that when he was granted bail at the stage of trial, the offence as against the present applicant was yet to be established after appreciation of evidence to be made by the trial Court. Now, he is a convict.

Once upon considering the evidence, the Court has come to a conclusion, as per the finding recorded in paragraph no.39 and 40 of the judgment, of involvement of the present applicant in commission of an offence under Section 307 of the IPC, now, it is a positive conclusion arrived at by the trial Court after appreciation of the evidence and, hence, the plea that during the course of trial he was on bail and he has never misused the same cannot be a yardstick to be adopted for considering the bail after judgment of conviction.

Thirdly, she submits, that the applicant would be entitled for a parity, because one of the co-accused persons, who was the prime assailant - Mr. Karan Singh, has already been released on bail by this Court vide its order dated 17.03.2023, as rendered in CRLA No.133 of 2023. There would be no parity available to the applicant for the reason being that the sole ground taken by this Court for releasing the appellant therein on bail was that since the appellant therein was arrested on 16.12.2015 and was released on bail on 30.01.2018 i.e. after serving about two years and one month of sentence. The Court considered that aspect, that since the major part of the sentence of more than two years has been served, he was directed to be released on bail.

But on the other hand, as far as the present applicant is concerned, he has served only nine months and twenty-one days of sentence as against the total sentence imposed by the judgment of conviction, hence, no parity is available to the applicant on the basis of the judgment rendered in the matter of Mr. Karan Singh. Hence, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant.

The bail application is rejected accordingly.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 29.03.2023 Sukhbant