High Court

in Re: Application no.IA/1/2024 [First bail application] Appellant :- Rajjan Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Rahul Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Brijesh Singh,Rashmi Gupta Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

1. Heard Shri Rahul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Both these bail applications arise out of same crime number, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. 3. The instant bail applications have been moved by the appellants-applicants/ Raj Kumar Singh, Uttam Singh and Udham Singh of Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2024 and Rajjan Singh and Guddu Singh of Criminal Appeal No.1062 of 2024, who are convicts of Sessions Trial No.156 of 2004, arising out of Case Crime No.501 of 2003, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 149, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Hasanganj, District Unnao, and sentenced them for maximum term of life imprisonment pertaining to Sections 302/149 I.P.C. with fine stipulation, vide judgment and order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court, Unnao, praying to release them on bail, during pendency of instant appeals.

4. The first bail application of appellants Raj Kumar Singh, Uttam Singh and Udham Singh, was rejected for want of prosecution and the Court had directed the matter to be listed in July, 2025 and the office was directed to prepare the paper book. After this order was passed on 21.04.2025, a second bail application has been moved on which the Court had ordered the listing of the case before the appropriate Court in the next cause list.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case and the Trial Court failed to appreciate the circumstances placed against the appellants during the course of trial in right perspective.

6. The counsel for the appellants Shri Rahul Kumar Singh has argued that all the appellants are old and sick persons. The F.I.R. was registered on 27.10.2023 at 12:30 PM whereas the incident is of 26.10.2023 at around 07:30 PM. No specific reason has been given for the delay in the F.I.R. The complainant alleges himself to be a brother of the deceased who did not live in the village but had come to celebrate the Festival of Diwali. There are no independent witnesses Km. Ranjana, PW-1 is the daughter of the deceased-Girish and PW-2 Rameshwar is the brother of the deceased. Both PW-1 and PW-2 were consistently stating before the Trial Court that deceased Girish had died due to a blow of Farsa / Kulhadi on his neck besides other injuries on his body caused by sharp edged weapon. The other deceased-Hardayal who was sitting at a little distance was dragged by the appellants by tying a rope around his neck and later on strangulating him with the said rope.

7. The counsel for the appellants has pointed out from the statement of the Doctor / Medical Officer who had conducted Post Mortem of Hardayal that he had only mentioned one contused injury and one incised wound on the abdomen which had been so deep as to cause of the Viscera to fall out/ extrude from the body. There is no mention of any strangulation mark on the neck of Hardayal, the other deceased. This consistent Statements / Testimony of two alleged eye witnesses, PW-1 and PW- 2 with regard to the manner of killing of Hardayal, does not match with the medical opinion/ finding recorded with regard to post mortem conducted by the Medical Officer concerned.

8. The appellants were on bail during the course of trial and they have not misused the liberty granted to them. The appellants are not having any criminal history and it is undertaken that they will cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the appeals also and their counsel shall remain present before this Court as and when the appeal would be listed for hearing.

9. The learned A.G.A. has pointed out Paragraph-21 of the judgment of the Trial Court to say that the Trial Court had believed the Testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 with regard to them being eye witnesses to the incident of murder of two of the brothers Girish and Hardayal. Eye witness account is always given priority over medical opinion.

10. We have found from the Judgment of the Trial Court prima facie no consideration of the fact of absence of strangulation marks on the body of deceased-Hardayal. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants sufficient enough to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellants, hence they are entitled to get bail.

11. In result, the bail applications of the appellants are allowed.

12. Let the appellants-applicants namely Raj Kumar Singh, Uttam Singh, Udham Singh, Rajjan Singh and Guddu Singh, involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) However, the fine as awarded by the Trial Court is not stayed. The same shall be deposited with the trial court by the appellants within three months from the date of their actual release from prison, if the same has not been earlier deposited. (ii) The appellants shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The appellants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

13. The trial court shall transmit the bail bonds submitted by the appellants to this Court, forthwith. (Order on Appeal) Office is directed to prepare the paper book within eight weeks. List this appeal in the month of July, 2025 for hearing. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 N.PAL

in Re: Application no.IA/1/2024 [First bail application] Appellant :- Rajjan Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Rahul Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Brijesh Singh,Rashmi Gupta Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

1. Heard Shri Rahul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. Both these bail applications arise out of same crime number, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. 3. The instant bail applications have been moved by the appellants-applicants/ Raj Kumar Singh, Uttam Singh and Udham Singh of Criminal Appeal No.1060 of 2024 and Rajjan Singh and Guddu Singh of Criminal Appeal No.1062 of 2024, who are convicts of Sessions Trial No.156 of 2004, arising out of Case Crime No.501 of 2003, under Sections 147, 148, 302, 149, 201 I.P.C., Police Station Hasanganj, District Unnao, and sentenced them for maximum term of life imprisonment pertaining to Sections 302/149 I.P.C. with fine stipulation, vide judgment and order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court, Unnao, praying to release them on bail, during pendency of instant appeals.

4. The first bail application of appellants Raj Kumar Singh, Uttam Singh and Udham Singh, was rejected for want of prosecution and the Court had directed the matter to be listed in July, 2025 and the office was directed to prepare the paper book. After this order was passed on 21.04.2025, a second bail application has been moved on which the Court had ordered the listing of the case before the appropriate Court in the next cause list.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case and the Trial Court failed to appreciate the circumstances placed against the appellants during the course of trial in right perspective.

6. The counsel for the appellants Shri Rahul Kumar Singh has argued that all the appellants are old and sick persons. The F.I.R. was registered on 27.10.2023 at 12:30 PM whereas the incident is of 26.10.2023 at around 07:30 PM. No specific reason has been given for the delay in the F.I.R. The complainant alleges himself to be a brother of the deceased who did not live in the village but had come to celebrate the Festival of Diwali. There are no independent witnesses Km. Ranjana, PW-1 is the daughter of the deceased-Girish and PW-2 Rameshwar is the brother of the deceased. Both PW-1 and PW-2 were consistently stating before the Trial Court that deceased Girish had died due to a blow of Farsa / Kulhadi on his neck besides other injuries on his body caused by sharp edged weapon. The other deceased-Hardayal who was sitting at a little distance was dragged by the appellants by tying a rope around his neck and later on strangulating him with the said rope.

7. The counsel for the appellants has pointed out from the statement of the Doctor / Medical Officer who had conducted Post Mortem of Hardayal that he had only mentioned one contused injury and one incised wound on the abdomen which had been so deep as to cause of the Viscera to fall out/ extrude from the body. There is no mention of any strangulation mark on the neck of Hardayal, the other deceased. This consistent Statements / Testimony of two alleged eye witnesses, PW-1 and PW- 2 with regard to the manner of killing of Hardayal, does not match with the medical opinion/ finding recorded with regard to post mortem conducted by the Medical Officer concerned.

8. The appellants were on bail during the course of trial and they have not misused the liberty granted to them. The appellants are not having any criminal history and it is undertaken that they will cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the appeals also and their counsel shall remain present before this Court as and when the appeal would be listed for hearing.

9. The learned A.G.A. has pointed out Paragraph-21 of the judgment of the Trial Court to say that the Trial Court had believed the Testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 with regard to them being eye witnesses to the incident of murder of two of the brothers Girish and Hardayal. Eye witness account is always given priority over medical opinion.

10. We have found from the Judgment of the Trial Court prima facie no consideration of the fact of absence of strangulation marks on the body of deceased-Hardayal. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we find force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants sufficient enough to exercise our discretion in favour of the appellants, hence they are entitled to get bail.

11. In result, the bail applications of the appellants are allowed.

12. Let the appellants-applicants namely Raj Kumar Singh, Uttam Singh, Udham Singh, Rajjan Singh and Guddu Singh, involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) However, the fine as awarded by the Trial Court is not stayed. The same shall be deposited with the trial court by the appellants within three months from the date of their actual release from prison, if the same has not been earlier deposited. (ii) The appellants shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The appellants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

13. The trial court shall transmit the bail bonds submitted by the appellants to this Court, forthwith. (Order on Appeal) Office is directed to prepare the paper book within eight weeks. List this appeal in the month of July, 2025 for hearing. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 N.PAL