Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 401 (ALL)

SURENDRA NATH SINGH v. STATE OF U P

2009-02-04

SHIV CHARAN SHARMA, VIJAY KUMAR VERMA

body2009
( 1 ) LEARNED AGA has filed objection, which be taken on record. ( 2 ) HEARD Sri V. P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri P. S. Sengar appearing for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and Sri I. K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the complainant, on the prayer of bail of the appellants Surendra Nath Singh, Shiv Kumari and Dhananjay, who have been convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge/ Additional Sessions Judge, court No. 7, Balia, in S. T. No. 184 of 2003 (State vs. Surendra Nath Singh and another), under section 147, 302/149, 201 IPC, P. S. Kotwali, District Balia and perused the material on record. ( 3 ) AT the outset, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that one of the co-accused, namely Gopal was also convicted and sentenced in the above session trial, who had been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14. 08. 2008. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to press that the case of the present appellant Surendra Nath Singh is identical to the co-accused Gopal who had already been granted bail. We have considered the relevant portion of the judgement as well as other documents in this connection. The learned counsel for the State tried to dispute this fact by stating that the case of this appellant is distinct from the co-accused Gopal on the ground that he was a servant of Surendra Nath Singh. Otherwise, also the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the case of the appellant namely Surendra Nath Singh is not identical to Gopal. On considering the entire material available on record, we are convinced that the case of the appellant Surendra Nath Singh is not identical to Gopal and hence the appellant-accused Surendra Nath Singh is not entitled to bail. ( 4 ) ON the ground of parity learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the case of Surendra Nath Singh may be distinct only on the ground that on his pointing out the clothes of the deceased were recovered. Learned counsel argued in this regard that after committing the murder, there was no sense for the appellant to conceal the clothes of the deceased and there was no sense in leaving behind the dead body in naked condition. Learned counsel argued in this regard that after committing the murder, there was no sense for the appellant to conceal the clothes of the deceased and there was no sense in leaving behind the dead body in naked condition. Learned counsel for the appellant further stated in this connection that the dead body was recovered from the bank of river Ghaghara and the clothes also were recovered from the bank of Ghaghra, but there is a distance of about five kilometres in between both the points. If the appellant wanted to destroy the evidence, he might have been thrown the clothes in the river Ghaghra and there was no reason for the appellant to conceal the clothes in the earth. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued regarding motive, which has been alleged by the prosecution. It is alleged by the prosecution that a sum of Rs. 60,000 was due on Surendra Nath Singh and panchayat was also convened for the payment of the amount Rs. 60,000/- to the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the appellants have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail and argued that there was motive available to the appellant Surendra Nath Singh for committing the murder of the deceased. He also argued that the clothes of the deceased were recovered on the pointing out of this appellant and one of the witness saw the accused-appellant shifting the dead body from his house to another place, but later on that witness had been declared hostile. ( 5 ) WE have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that the case of the appellant Surendra Nath Singh is distinguishable from the appellants Shiv Kumari and Dhananjay. Hence, he does not deserve bail. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the prayer for bail of the appellant Surendra Nath Singh is declined and rejected accordingly. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, considering that the role of the appellants Shiv Kumari and Dhananjay is distinguishable from the appellant Surendra Nath Singh, we are of the opinion that without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, appellants Shiv Kumari and Dhananjay Singh may be admitted to bail. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, considering that the role of the appellants Shiv Kumari and Dhananjay is distinguishable from the appellant Surendra Nath Singh, we are of the opinion that without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, appellants Shiv Kumari and Dhananjay Singh may be admitted to bail. ( 8 ) LET the appellants Shiv Kumari and Dhananjay Singh be released on bail in the above case during pendency of the appeal on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial court concerned and subject to deposit of 50% of fine within one month from today, but prior to the release on bail. ( 9 ) ON depositing 50% fine, the remaining 50% amount of fine shall remain stayed till disposal of appeal. However, hearing of the appeal is expedited. .