Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
(C.M. Application No. 15671 of 2007) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This second bail application has been moved by the appellant-applicant/Sahaj Ram Verma to release him on bail during pendency of instant appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 09.10.2006 passed by learned Special Judge, Gangster Court, Faizabad in Gangster Case No. 319 of 2003, arising out of Case Crime No. 71 of 2003, under Sections 302 and 307 of I.P.C. and under Section 3 (1) U.P. Gangster Act and Gangster Case No. 320 of 2003 arising out of Case Crime No. 72 of 2003, under Section 25 of Arms Act, relating to Police Station Kursi, District Barabanki whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 of I.P.C. His first bail application of the appellant was not pressed and dismissed as such vide order dated 18.12.2006 of this Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant while pressing the bail application submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of enmity and no offence as such has been committed by the appellant.
It is further submitted that the deceased was the real father of the appellant and there was no occasion for him to murder his own father and the story, which has been put-forth by the prosecution is highly improbable and could not be believed and the same has been cooked up by the real brother of the appellant namely Jitendra Kumar Verma.
It is further submitted that the alleged incident is stated to have occurred in the wee hours of the night and in absence of any source of light, it was not possible for the informant or any other person to identify the appellant or other co-convicts. So, the whole story of the prosecution is based on false implication.
It is further submitted that the Court below has convicted the appellant in sheer disregard to the settled principles of appreciation of evidence and the evidence available on record has not been appreciated by the trial Court in right perspective.
It is next submitted that the recovery of 'Tamancha' at the instance of the appellant is highly doubtful and the same could not be believed in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is also submitted that even if the story of the prosecution is taken to be true on its face value, the case of the prosecution could not travel beyond Section 304 of the I.P.C. and the appellant has been detained in prison in this case for the last more than 16 years. Appellant is not having any previous criminal history. He is aged about 60 years and is suffering from various age related ailments, while other convicts of the crime have been enlarged on bail by this Court.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer for bail of learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that the appellant has committed a grievous offence and, therefore, he is not entitled for bail, however, he could not confront the other factual submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant including the age and period of detention of the appellant.
Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record reveals that deceased was the real father of the appellant and he at the time of incident was living with another son namely Jitendra Kumar Verma at his ancestral house at Village Deora, while appellant started to live at Village Peera Nagar, Police Station Dewa, District Barabanki, as he had some dispute with his younger brother Jitendra Kumar Verma and father/deceased Shri Swami Dayal Verma. Appellant is alleged to have killed his father in the dead of night on 06.03.2003 by firing from a country-made pistol, which was allegedly recovered on his pointing.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to his enmity with his real brother Jitendra Kumar Verma and he along with other co-convicts has been falsely implicated. By referring to the order of this Court dated 18.12.2006, whereby bail has been granted to other co-convicts, it has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant that other appellants have been granted bail by this Court on the ground that the names of these 03 co-convicts were not mentioned in the First Information Report. It is also argued that when in the dead of the night his brother Jitendra Kumar Verma and his wife Gayatri could identify the appellant, why they could not identify the other co-convicts and if they were able to identify assailants, why their names were not mentioned in the First Information Report.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has remained in the prison in this case for more than 16 years and he is suffering from different age related ailments and as the paper book has still not been prepared the hearing of appeal may take some more time.
Considering the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting upon merits, we are of the considered view that the appellant may be enlarged on bail.
Let appellant-applicant/Sahaj Ram Verma involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
The whole amount of fine imposed by the subordinate court shall be deposited by the appellants within 15 days after being released from prison on bail.
A copy of the personal bond and surety bond shall be transmitted to this Court by the subordinate court for being kept on record of appeal.
(Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.) (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.) Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Praveen