Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1885 of 2018 Appellant :- Nirmala Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Navin Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Order on Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.1 of 2018
Heard Sri Navin Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants,Sri Ajeet Ray, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the lower court record.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive by the complainant. He further submits that there was sudden fight which took place between the husband of appellant no.1, namely, Bhola and his real brother, namely, Deepu as well as his cousin, namely, Raju and in the said incident, the husband of appellant no.1 died at the hands of the complainant party. He next argued that as per the prosecution case, the deceased was assaulted by lathi, danda and iron pipe (phukani), but most of the injuries found on the person of the deceased are incised wounds, which cannot be caused by the said weapons. He next argued that an FIR was also registered against the complainant party by the appellant no.1 on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., which was registered as case crime No.278A/2000, under Sections 147, 302 I.P.C. in which final report was submitted and on the basis of false material collected during the course of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted against the appellants. He next argued that neither in the FIR nor in the statements of the witnesses recorded before the trial Court, any overt act has been assigned to the appellants. The appellants have no criminal antecedents. The appellants were on bail during trial, but they have not misused the liberty of bail granted to them. The trial court has misread the evidence on record and wrongly convicted the appellants. He further submits that the appellants are in jail since 9.2.2018.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the appellants.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the sentence awarded to the appellants, we are of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to be released on bail.
Let the appellants, Nirmala Devi & Munna convicted and sentenced in S.T. No.1098 of 2003, arising out of Case Crime No278 of 2000, under Sections 302 & 307 I.P.C., Police Station-sadar Bazar, District Shahjahanpur be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds with two heavy sureties (one should be of their family members) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Until further orders, the realization of half of the fine awarded to the appellants shall also remain stayed.
On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bonds, the lower court shall transmit Photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.
It is further directed that out of fine imposed on appellants by the trial Court, 50% of the same shall be deposited by the appellants and balance amount of fine shall remain stayed during the pendency of this appeal.
It is made clear that the appellants shall be released on bail only after depositing the 50% of the fine so imposed on them by the trial Court as well as the personal bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, as has been mentioned in the present order.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 12.10.2018/Puspendra