Hon'ble Shyam Shankar Tiwari,J.
Heard Sri R.K.Sharma, learned Advocate, who appeared to press the bail application moved on behalf of the appellants Shishpal @ Rishipal and Neeraj.
Appellants, above named, were prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections so mentioned in the judgment and they are to serve out the sentence so provided.
Submission is that the incident has taken in the day hours and the witnesses are there, but from the fact it has been established that it is an incident which was not seen by anybody and the appellants are named on account of enmity and for various reasons as have been mentioned in the defence version. Further submission of the counsel for the appellants is that the four accused, are shown to be armed with Favra and Farsa and they are said to have assaulted on the deceased and also on the injured ( P.W.1) and so far as the appellants are concerned they are said to have caught hold of the deceased. Submission is that if the role assigned to the accused appellants of catching hold is accepted then the injuries, which are received by the deceased at various places of the body cannot be possible and thus from these very basic facts it is clear that nobody has seen the incident and exonerated/ colourful version just to implicate the appellants has been stated.
Submission of the counsel for the appellants is that if the role assigned to the applicant is accepted to be correct then the injured witness who is the husband of the deceased who is said to be present received only two minor injuries which can not be said to have been caused by Favra/Farsa and they are simple in nature and they are said to have been caused by blunt object.
Learned A.G.A. opposing the prayer for bail submitted that it is a day light incident. The specific role is there. Eye witnesses have been examined and they have been believed by the trial judge and therefore after conviction it is not a fit case for bail. The role of catching hold has also been assigned to the other two co- accused namely, Sanjay and Anil. They are said to have assaulted the deceased. There is sufficient evidence against the appellants and the Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellants.
From perusal of the facts on record it is clear that the appellants were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail and the appeal is not so old and thus it will take long time in its disposal, thus the appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
On the facts and totality of the circumstances this Court is of the considered view that the appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, let the appellants Shishpal @ Rishipal and Neeraj. involved in S.T. No.1766 of 2006 be enlarged on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
Realization of fine in respect to above appellants is not stayed. Order Date :- 4.1.2010 Ak/