Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
Order on bail application Mr. Manish Tiwary, advocate filed parcha on behalf of appellant be taken on record.
This is a bail application has been moved on behalf of appellant-applicant Kundan Kumar @ Ravi Prakash in S.T. No.338 of 2008, arising out of Case Crime No.233 of 2007, under Section 302/34, 201, 120-B IPC, P.S. Ahirauli, District Kushi Nagar.
Heard Mr. Manish Tiwary learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, V.K. Pandey learned A. G. A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant submits that the appellant-applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the appellant-applicant was on bail during trial and he has never abused or misused the liberty of bail granted to him. It is further contended that the F.I.R. was lodged through an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.; appellant-applicant was not named in the F.I.R; appellant-applicant has got no previous criminal history. It is further contended that with regard to missing of boy, a missing report was lodged on 11.03.2007 in which again the appellant was not named. It has further been contended that on the basis of records the dead body of an unknown person was recovered and panchayatnama was conducted on 26.02.2007, whereas as per F.I.R. it has been mentioned that the deceased was missing on 27.02.2007 which is itself contradictory. It is further contended that there is no major contradictions that a body of an unknown persons on 26.02.2007 was recovered and whose panchayatnama was done on 26.02.2007 itself and none has identified the as Shahjade @ Taiyab whereas the deceased was disappeared on 27.02.2007. It is further contended that the name of the appellant came into light on the testimony of Smt. Afsana wife of the deceased. It is further contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of illicit relation with the wife of the deceased. It is further contended that there is no eye witness account of the alleged incident and nothing has been recovered on the pointing out of the applicant. The appellant is languishing in jail since 11.10.2017.
Learned A.G.A. has strongly opposed the prayer for bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, prima facie, a case for bail has been made out. However, the said prima facie view will not in any manner adversely affect the case of the prosecution.
The prayer for bail is granted. The application is allowed.
Let the appellant-applicant Kundan Kumar @ Ravi Prakash convicted and sentenced in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.
On acceptance of bail bond and personal bond, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.
Fifty percent of the fine shall be deposited by the appellant-applicant within a period of one month from the date of his release and balance fifty percent of fine shall remain stayed during the pendency of this appeal. In case of default in depositing fifty percent of fine within the aforesaid period, the same shall be recovered in accordance with law.
Since the lower court record has been received, the hearing of this appeal be expedited under Chapter-VIII Rule 33A of the Rules of Court.
Let the paper books be prepared within three months and thereafter the appeal be listed for hearing before the appropriate Bench.
Order Date :- 30.3.2018 Jitendra