R. C. DEEPAK AND K. N. OJHA, JJ. ( 1 ) 1. Objection filed by the State, be taken on record. Criminal appeal no. 729 of 2007 Umakant and others vs. State of U. P. and criminal appeal no. 769 of 2007 Deen Dayal and others vs. State of U. P. arise out of judgment and order dated 23. 1. 2007 passed by the learned addl. Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in S. T. No. 38 of 1992 under Sections 147, 148, 323/149 and 302/149 IPC pertaining to P. S. Suhaval Distt. Ghazipur and the prayer made therein for their release on bail, is being heard together and is disposed of by a common order. ( 2 ) HEARD Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel with the assistance of sri Shri Ram Rawsat, learned counsel for the appellant accused, Sri p. K. Rai, learned counsel for the informant, learned Addl. Government advocate for the State and perused the impugned judgment. ( 3 ) IT has vehemently been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants accused that the prosecution has not come up with the actual facts of the case leading to the alleged occurrence. In fact the appellants Deen Dayal, umakant, Munna, Mathuri and non appellant Ashok also sustained injuries including the fracture on the body of Suresh Gupta and in this regard an ncr no. 51 of 1991 was registered. Six persons sustained injuries on the side of the prosecution, one Sarvajeet lost life. His further contention is that some dispute arose in regard to the plucking of the mango and the occurrence is a result of sudden provocation, therefore, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 IPC is against the express provision of law. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the informant and learned A. G. A. submit that Sarvajeet suffered two fatal incised wounds caused by Deen dayal and Umakant with Gandasa, therefore, their case is distinguishable from the case of other co-accused. ( 5 ) CONTRADICTING the arguments of the learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA, learned counsel for the appellants accused further submits that these two appellants also suffered injuries. ( 5 ) CONTRADICTING the arguments of the learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA, learned counsel for the appellants accused further submits that these two appellants also suffered injuries. ( 6 ) WE have taken into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the merits of the case, we are of the view that the appellants have succeeded in making out a case for their being released on bail. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is admitted. Issue notice. The appellants Umakant, Munna, Mathuri, Ravindra Prasad, Deen Dayal and umashanker convicted under Section 147, 148, 323/149, 302/149 IPC in sessions Trial No. 38 of 1992 P. S. Suhaval Distt. Ghazipur shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The realisation of the fine imposed upon the appellants shall remain stayed during the pendency of their appeal before this Court. .