Munger The State Of Bihar v. with
Case Details
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.85 of 2001 dt. 21-06-2013 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.85 of 2001 =========================================================== 1. Chunni Lal Pd. Sah @ Chunilal Sao, S/O-Late Devi 2. Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Sao, S/O-Chunilal Sah, both resident of Mohalla-Gandhichowk, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Munger The State Of Bihar Versus with .... .... Appellant/s .... .... Respondent/s Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 104 of 2001 =========================================================== Muna Sah @ Munesh, S/O-Chunilal Sah, resident of village-Purabsaray Gandhi Chauk, P.S.- Kotwali, District-Munger Versus .... .... Appellant/s The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha(Advocate) For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh (A.P.P.) =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 21-06-2013 CAV JUDGMENT 1. Both the above stated criminal appeals have been preferred against common judgment of conviction dated 22.01.2001 and order of sentence dated 01.02.2001 passed by learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 285 of 1997 by which and whereunder he convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 498 A and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.85 of 2001 dt. 21-06-2013 2 for the offence punishable under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Since both the aforesaid criminal appeals have arisen out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence and were heard together, a common judgment is being passed in both the above stated criminal appeals. 2. In brief, the prosecution case, is that P.W. 5, Punam Kumari Verma gave her Ferdbeyan to S.I., Kotwali police station, Munger on 28.02.1997 around 01:00 P.M. in injured condition at emergency ward of Sadar Hospital, Munger to this effect that her marriage was solemnized with appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2001 in the year 1987 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and after marriage, she came to her in laws’ house and started leading her conjugal life with her husband happily and peacefully as a result of which she gave birth to a female child in the year 1988 and again she gave birth to second female child out of the aforesaid wedlock. She further stated that her husband used to demand a television and rupees twenty thousand in cash giving threatening to kill her both daughters. She further stated that her husband was addict of playing gambling. She further stated that appellant no. 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2001 is her father in law and he used to instigate her husband whereas appellant no. 2 of Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2001 used to pass
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.85 of 2001 dt. 21-06-2013 3 surcasting comments against her. Her husband and other appellants (who are hereinafter referred to as the accused persons) stopped providing clothes and food to her and used to abuse her. Being fed up with the behaviour of accused persons, she wrote letter to her father and thereafter her father tried to pacify the matter. She further stated that she went to her parental home and while she was at her parental home, accused persons sent threatening letters mentioning the demand of television and cash. Her father expressed his inability to meet the aforesaid demand. She again came to her matrimonial home and on 16.02.1997 at about 10:00 A.M. she was not feeling well but accused persons pressurized her to cook meal upon which she expressed her inability and after that her husband sprinkled kerosene oil on her and lit the fire on her body. Her father in law, accused Chunni Lal Sah ordered the others to kill her and they also closed the door but she, anyhow, came out of the house and raised alarm which attracted several persons and the aforesaid persons took her to hospital where police came and recorded her statement but she could not disclose the real state of affairs and out of fear she disclosed before the police that she was caught in fire due to bursting of stove. 3. On the basis of aforesaid ferdbeyan, Kotwali P.S. Case No. 106 of 1997 for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 324, 326, 307, 498 A/34 of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of Dowry Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.85 of 2001 dt. 21-06-2013 4 Prohibition Act was registered on the same day and accordingly, formal first information report for the above stated offences was drawn up against the appellants. The formal first information report and other documents were put up before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger on 04.03.1997. 4. P.W. 10, Sadhu Sharan Choubey, the then S.I., Kotwali Police Station, Munger recorded the above stated Ferdbeyan of P.W. 5 and proved it as Exhibit-3. He recorded the further statement of P.W. 5 and issued requisition for injury report. He took charge of investigation, inspected the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses and after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 324, 326, 307, 498 A/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. The cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions, in usual way. 5. All the above stated accused persons were put on trial and accordingly, they were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 498 A of the Indian Penal Code and ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act. All the accused persons denied the charges. 6. In course of trial, prosecution examined, altogether, ten witnesses and also got exhibited letter written by accused Muna Sah @ Munesh as Exhibit-1, signature of P.W. 5 on her Ferdbeyan as Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.85 of 2001 dt. 21-06-2013 5 Exhibit-2, signature of Navin Kumar Verma (P.W. 6) on Ferdbeyan of P.W. 5 as Exhibit-2/1, signature of P.W. 5 on her statement recorded by a Judicial Magistrate as Exhibit-2/2, signature of Dr. Mahesh Pd. Singh on the statement recorded by Judicial Magistrate as Exhibit-2/3,
Legal Reasoning
signature of P.W. 5 on protest petition as Exhibit-2/4, signature of Sri Binod Kr., Advocate on the protest petition as Exhibit-2/5, Ferdbeyan of P.W. 5 as Exhibit-3, endorsement on her Ferdbeyan as Exhibit-4, injury report of P.W. 5 as Exhibit-5 and formal first information report as Exhibit-6. The statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the prosecution story and stated that P.W. 5 was caught in fire accidentally and accused Muna Sah, specifically, stated that his father in law used to pressurize him to part his ways from his other family members and to live with him. 7. The defence also examined two witnesses and also got exhibited some letters said to be written by P.W. 6, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 as Exhibit-A, B, C and D, respectively and Exhibit E, SDE No. 417 dated 16.02.1997. Besides it, some documents were also produced which were marked for identification. 8. The learned trial court, having analyzed the materials available on the record acquitted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act on the grounds Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.85 of 2001 dt. 21-06-2013 6 that there was no agreement between the parties for giving the dowry and, therefore, Section ¾ of Dowry Prohibition Act was not applicable but learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code in the manner as stated above passing impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the accused persons challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence arguing that according to prosecution case itself, the alleged occurrence took place on 16.02.1997 at around 10:00 AM. and after the occurrence P.W. 5 was brought to hospital where her statement was recorded by the police in respect of the alleged occurrence and in the aforesaid statement she, specifically, stated that she was caught in fire accidentally while she was cooking meal and on the basis of aforesaid statement, Sanha entry was made and police started enquiry on the basis of aforesaid sanha entry but again police recorded the Ferdbeyan (Exhibit-3) of P.W. 5 and twisted the entire story. He further submitted that second Ferdbeyan (Exhibit-3) is hit by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. and the second Ferdbeyan (Exhibit-3) can never be treated as first information report in respect of the alleged occurrence. He further submitted that first statement of P.W. 5 has deliberately been suppressed by the prosecution. He further submitted that P.W. 5 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.85 of 2001 dt. 21-06-2013 7 tried to explain the circumstances in which her first statement was recorded and she stated that she gave her first statement out of fear of accused persons as they had given threatening to kill her daughters but the aforesaid important circumstance was not put before the accused persons while their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded and, therefore, no opportunity was provided to the accused persons to explain the aforesaid circumstance and, therefore, a serious prejudice has been caused to the accused persons. In support of his contention, he referred a decision reported in BLJR 2013 (Patna High Court) 285. He further submitted that admittedly, the second statement of P.W. 5 was recorded on 28.02.1997 i.e. after long delay and no plausible explanation about the aforesaid delay was given. Furthermore, the first information report and other relative documents were put up before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger on 04.03.1997 violating the mandatory provision of the law and, therefore, the aforesaid circumstance also creates doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution story. He further submitted that P.W. 5 has admitted in her deposition that she had not made any statement in respect of the alleged occurrence on 28.02.1997 and, therefore, the aforesaid admission of P.W. 5 clearly indicates to this fact that so- called Ferdbeyan (Exhibit-3) is an engineered and manufactured document and no reliance can safely be placed on the aforesaid Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.85 of 2001 dt. 21-06-2013 8 Ferdbeyan (Exhibit-3). He further submitted that although, the accused Muna Sah @ Munesh denied to have written Exhibit-1 in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. but even if it assumed that Exhibit-1 was written by him, then also, Exhibit-1 is said to have been written in the year 1991 and admittedly, after writing of the aforesaid Exhibit-1, P.W. 5 filed a maintenance case in Orissa but later on, the aforesaid dispute of the parties was resolved and P.W. 5 started living at her matrimonial home and, therefore, except Exhibit-1 there was nothing before the trial court to come on the conclusion that any demand of television and cash was made by the accused persons. He further submitted that the learned trial court failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact and circumstance in right perspective and also did not consider the defence version. He further submitted that learned trial court committed error in convicting and sentencing the accused persons in the manner as stated above. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence arguing that P.W. 5 as well as other prosecution witnesses clearly proved the prosecution story and furthermore, Exhibit-1 clearly indicates this fact that accused Muna Sah @ Munesh had demanded television and cash and furthermore, admittedly, prior to the instant case, P.W. 5 had lodged a case against her husband in Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.85 of 2001 dt. 21-06-2013 9 Orissa and, therefore, all the aforesaid circumstances clearly indicate this fact that the accused persons put the P.W. 5 on fire with an intent to commit her murder and, therefore, learned trial court rightly convicted and sentenced the accused persons in the manner as stated above. 11. As I have already stated that altogether, ten prosecution witnesses were examined by the prosecution in course of trial and out of the aforesaid ten prosecution witnesses, P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 have been declared hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. P.W. 6 is brother of P.W. 5 whereas P.W. 8 is mother and P.W. 9 is father of P.W. 5. Admittedly, P.W. 6, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 are not eye witness of the alleged occurrence and they came to know about the alleged occurrence from P.W. 5 as well as some other persons. P.W. 7 is daughter of P.W. 5 as well as accused Muna Sah and she claimed herself to be eye witness of the alleged occurrence whereas P.W. 5 is informant and victim herself. 12. P.W. 7 stated in her deposition that her mother was set on fire by her father. She has, nowhere, stated about the role played by the accused persons, namely, Chhuni Lal Pd. Sah and Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Kumar Sao in the alleged crime. P.W. 7 was examined by the learned trial court on 24.06.1998 and at the time of her examination learned trial court assessed her age as eight years. So, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.85 of 2001 dt. 21-06-2013 10 it appears that at the time of alleged occurrence P.W. 7 was hardly seven years old. P.W. 7 stated that when the alleged occurrence took place, she was in her school and after the alleged occurrence, she was taken away by her maternal uncle. Therefore, in my view, no reliance can safely be placed on the deposition of P.W. 7 because being a child there was every possibility of tutoring her as after the alleged occurrence she was, admittedly, residing with her maternal uncle. 13. P.W. 5 is the victim herself. She supported the prosecution story in her deposition and also proved her photograph which has been marked for identification. She admitted that she led her married life happily and peacefully for near about one and half years after her marriage and gave birth to a female child. Therefore, it is apparent from the aforesaid statement that there was no demand of dowry at the time of solemnization of marriage and the demand was made after birth of first child of P.W. 5. P.W. 5 also admitted that she gave birth to three children out of her wedlock. She stated that she wrote a letter to her father mentioning the demand as well as torturing and after that her father came to her matrimonial home and took her to Orissa. She further stated that while she was at Orissa, her husband wrote a letter (Exhibit-1) to her. She further stated that her father brought her to her matrimonial home and tried to pacify the matter. She admitted that while she was in hospital, her husband and other in Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.85 of 2001 dt. 21-06-2013 11 laws had pressurized her for saying that she was caught in fire accidentally. She admitted in her cross examination that prior to the alleged occurrence she had filed a dowry case against her husband in Orissa and at the time of filing of the aforesaid dowry case, her first daughter was aged about two and half years old. She again stated that two years prior to the alleged occurrence, the accused persons had attempted to put her on fire and she tried to lodge a case against the accused persons but police did not register her case and she had informed her father as well as other relatives in respect of the aforesaid occurrence. She admitted that her uncle as well as her maternal uncle resides in Munger. She also admitted that after the aforesaid incident, the dispute was resolved but no paper of compromise was prepared. She also admitted that she went to Orissa six months prior to delivery of her first child and remained there for near about two and half years. She further stated that she gave birth to her first child after one and half years of her marriage. She admitted that when her husband wrote letter to her demanding television and cash, she filed maintenance case in Orissa. She further admitted that her husband is separate from her parents and she along with her husband resides on upper floor of the house whereas her parents in law and brother in law reside on ground floor of the house. She admitted that her brother and other family members came after three Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.85 of 2001 dt. 21-06-2013 12 days of the alleged occurrence. she denied this fact that prior to recording of Exhibit-3, she had made any statement before the police but admitted that she had stated before the police that she was caught in fire due to bursting of stove and the aforesaid statement was made by her out of fear and threatening given by her in laws. She also admitted that she had made statement twice before the police and when her second statement was recorded, her father, brother and others were present. 14. P.W. 6, the brother of P.W. 5 admitted that he along with his mother came to Munger after three or four days of the alleged occurrence and went straightway to hospital. He further stated that when he reached sadar hospital, he found his maternal aunt along with his sister. He further admitted that in the year 1991-1992, a dowry case was lodged by his sister and after institution of aforesaid dowry case, his sister came to Munger and she was taken away by the accused persons to their house. He also admitted that after ten to twelve days of his arrival, the police recorded his statement as well as statement of his sister. He also admitted that on 16.01.1997 his maternal brother informed him on telephone about the alleged occurrence. 15. Almost similar statement has been made by P.W. 8 who happens to be mother of P.W. 5. She admitted that P.W. 5 came Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.85 of 2001 dt. 21-06-2013 13 to her house after marriage in the year 1991 and remained there till 1993. She further stated that when accused Muna Sah wrote a letter demanding dowry, P.W. 5 lodged a case of dowry. She also admitted that in the year 1993, her husband as well as P.W. 5 had gone to Munger where a Panchayati was held and in the aforesaid Panchayati, accused persons agreed to take back P.W. 5 and thereafter P.W. 5 went to her in laws’ house and again she came to her parental home after delivery of her second daughter and remained there for one and half years. She further stated that again P.W. 5 went to her in laws’ house though she was not interested to go to her in laws’ house as her in laws used to torture her on account of non fulfilment of illegal demand. She further admitted that after six days of her arrival at Munger, her husband came there and after arrival of her husband police came to the hospital. She also admitted that when father in law and Nandosi of P.W. 5 came to Balagir, P.W. 5 was sent along with the aforesaid persons to Munger. 16. P.W. 9 stated that in the year 1991 accused Muna Sah wrote a letter demanding dowry and after that in the year 1993 he came to Munger where in laws of her daughter accepted their guilt and requested to send back P.W. 5 to their home and after that his daughter (P.W. 5) started residing at her matrimonial home and between the aforesaid period his daughter ( P.W. 5) visited her Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.85 of 2001 dt. 21-06-2013 14 parental home twice or thrice and disclosed that her husband was a drunkard and used to play gambling. He further stated that on 16.02.1999, the son of his brother in law gave a telephonic message that P.W. 5 was lying in hospital in burnt condition and after that his son and wife went to Munger and he, too, went Munger where he found his daughter lying in burnt condition in hospital. He further stated that his daughter (P.W. 5) disclosed about the alleged occurrence. He stated in his cross examination that he had not made any statement before the police and police had only taken his signature on a paper. He also admitted that for the first time, he made statement before the court. He also admitted that between 1991 to 1993 he went several times to the house of accused persons but father in law of P.W. 5 expressed his inability to patch up the dispute of P.W. 5 and appellant Muna Sah. 17. P.W. 10, the Investigating Officer admitted that on 28.02.1997 at about 01:00 P.M. he had recorded the Ferdbeyan (Exhibit-3) of P.W. 5 in sadar hospital and the aforesaid Ferdbeyan was recorded by him on the basis of OD slip issued by the doctor of the hospital. He admitted in his cross examination that he had recorded the Ferdbeyan of P.W.5 on 16.02.1997 at about 10:00 A.M. at sadar hospital and the said Ferdbeyan was also recorded by him on the basis of O.D. slip issued by the doctor. He further submitted that Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.85 of 2001 dt. 21-06-2013 15 aforesaid Ferdbeyan was handed over by him to officer in charge of Kotwali police station and on the basis of aforesaid Ferdbeyan, Sanha entry no. 417 dated 16.02.1997 was made. He admitted that he did not mention the aforesaid Ferdbeyan in the case diary. He also admitted that when he went to record the second statement of P.W. 5, he was aware of this fact that he had already recorded statement of P.W. 5. He also admitted that no case was instituted in police station on the basis of first statement of P.W. 5 but an enquiry in respect of the first statement of P.W. 5 was entrusted to him. He admitted that he did not give any enquiry report in respect of the first statement of P.W. 5. He also admitted that he had issued requisition of injury of P.W. 5 on 16.02.1997. He also admitted that in first statement of P.W. 5, the P.W. 5 stated that she was caught in fire due to bursting of stove. This witness admitted that he had not given any option before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for get recording the statement of P.W. 5 under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. He also admitted that on 16.04.1996 P.W. 5 gave a letter to him. 18. On perusal of above stated depositions of prosecution witnesses, it is obvious that the statement of P.W. 5 in respect of the alleged occurrence was recorded for the first time on 16.02.1997 and in the aforesaid statement, she admitted that she was caught in fire due to bursting of stove. Furthermore, it is obvious from the aforesaid Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.85 of 2001 dt. 21-06-2013 16 evidences that the P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 came to hospital after three days of the alleged occurrence having got telephonic information and admittedly, the telephonic information was given to them by maternal brother of P.W. 5. Furthermore, I find that P.W. 5 has admitted in her deposition that her maternal aunt as well as her other relatives had gone to the hospital when she was brought to the hospital after the alleged occurrence. It is also obvious from the aforesaid fact that the maternal aunt and her other relatives had got information about the alleged occurrence on the alleged date of occurrence and accordingly, they informed to P.W. 6, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 about the alleged occurrence on the same day. P.W. 6, specifically, admitted that he along with his mother (P.W. 8) had gone to Munger hospital either on 19.021997 or 20.02.1997 i.e. after three or four days of the alleged occurrence. P.W. 5 stated that she had made her first statement out of fear as her parents in law had given threatening to kill her daughters but admittedly, her father, brother and mother came to hospital after three or four days of the alleged occurrence but in spite of that she did not disclose the aforesaid facts to her parents as well as her brother and P.W. 6, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 did not take any step to inform the police about the aforesaid fact of threatening. Besides it, admittedly, between 16.02.1997 to 20.02.1997, the maternal uncle and other relatives of P.W. 5 used to visit the hospital where P.W. 5 was Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.85 of 2001 dt. 21-06-2013 17 admitted but P.W. 5 did not disclose the aforesaid factum of threatening to the aforesaid relatives. Furthermore, I find that according to P.W. 5, she could not disclose the real fact before the police as the accused persons had given threatening to kill her daughters and P.W. 7, the daughter of P.W. 5 stated that when her maternal uncle arrived, she was taken away by him and, therefore, it is clear that after arrival of P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 the children of P.W. 5 were taken in custody by P.W. 6 and P.W. 8 but in spite of that P.W. 5 did not disclose the real fact before the police. 19. Admittedly, the second Ferdbeyan (Exhibit-3) was lodged on 28.02.1997 i.e. after 12 days of the alleged occurrence and in my view, no plausible explanation of the aforesaid delay has been given by the prosecution, particularly, in the circumstance when the family members of P.W. 5 had already arrived at hospital after three to five days of the alleged occurrence. Furthermore, even if it assumed that P.W. 5 had given her first statement out of the aforesaid fear and threatening, then also, no step was taken by the P.W. 6, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 to inform the police between 20.02.1997-28.02.1997. Therefore, the aforesaid delay creates doubt about the genuineness of prosecution story. 20. Admittedly, the marriage of P.W. 5 was solemnized with accused, Muna Sah @ Munesh in the year 1987 and dispute Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.85 of 2001 dt. 21-06-2013 18 arose between P.W. 5 and her husband in the year 1991 and after that P.W. 5 lodged a case against the accused persons in Orissa. It is obvious from the evidence of prosecution witnesses that the aforesaid dispute was resolved by the parties in the year 1993 and after that P.W. 5 started residing with accused persons and prosecution failed to bring any material to show this fact that P.W. 5 was subjected to cruelty and harassment between 1993 to 1997 and any demand was made by the accused persons between the aforesaid period. So far as Exhibit-1 is concerned, admittedly, the aforesaid letter was written in the year 1991 and after writing of the aforesaid letter, P.W. 5 lodged a case in Orissa but after institution of the aforesaid case, the dispute had already been resolved and, therefore, even if it is accepted to be true that accused Muna Sah @ Munesh had written Exhibit-1 demanding illegal dowry, then also, the aforesaid letter had already lost its force after resolution of dispute of the parties in the year 1993. 21. P.W. 10, the Investigating Officer of this case admitted that on the alleged date of occurrence, he recorded the statement of P.W. 5 and in the aforesaid statement, P.W. 5 admitted that she was caught in fire accidentally but P.W. 10 did not mention the aforesaid fact in the case diary and prosecution tried to suppress the first statement of P.W. 5 though the aforesaid statement has been brought on record by the defence and therefore, it is clear that Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.85 of 2001 dt. 21-06-2013 19 prosecution has not come with clean hands. Moreover, when the statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., this fact was not put before the accused persons that they got recorded the first statement of P.W. 5 after giving threatening to kill her children and, therefore, the accused persons could not get an opportunity to explain the circumstances in which the first statement of P.W. 5 was recorded and, therefore, in my view, learned counsel for the accused persons rightly submitted that non putting of the aforesaid important circumstance before the accused persons in course of recording their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. has caused prejudice to them. 22. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that the learned trial court committed an error in convicting and sentencing the accused persons and in my view, the accused persons are entitled to get benefit of doubt. Accordingly, both the above stated criminal appeals are allowed and impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are, hereby, set aside. The accused persons are acquitted of the charges giving benefit of doubt to them. The accused persons are on bail. They are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. SHAHZAD/A.F.R. (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)