Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 601 (ALL)

SHEO PAL v. STATE OF U P

2009-02-24

SHIV CHARAN SHARMA, VIJAY KUMAR VERMA

body2009
( 1 ) LEARNED AGA has filed objection, which be taken on record. ( 2 ) HEARD Sri G. S. Hajela learned counsel for the appellant, Sri A. R. Nadiwal and Sri Dinesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the complainant and AGA for the State on the prayer of bail of the appellants Sheo Pal. Desh Raj, Oma and Dharam Veer, who have been convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Saharanpur in S. T. No. 220 of 200 (State vs. Sheo Pal and others), under sections 302, 323, 324 IPC and connected S. T. No. 216 of 2000 (State vs. Sheopal), under section 25 Arms act and S. T. No. 217 of 2000 (State vs. Desh Raj), under section 25/4 Arms Act, P. S. Gagalheri, District Saharanpur and perused the material on record. ( 3 ) AT the outset, learned counsel for the appellants stated that the prayer of bail of the appellant Sheo Pal is not pressed at this stage and it is prayed that the prayer of bail of the appellant Sheo Pal may be dismissed as not pressed at this stage. Learned counsel for the appellant has also not advanced any argument regarding prayer of bail of the appellant Sheo Pal. Hence on the request of learned counsel for the appellants, the prayer for bail of the appellant Sheo Pal is rejected at this stage as not pressed. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants argued that the only role assigned against the appellants is of catching hold of the deceased and no other overt act has been assigned to the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the appellants were on bail during trial and they have not misused the bail. ( 5 ) LEARNED AGA opposed the bail but the role assigned to these appellants has not been disputed. 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 considering the role of the appellants they are entitled for bail. ( 5 ) LEARNED AGA opposed the bail but the role assigned to these appellants has not been disputed. 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 considering the role of the appellants they are entitled for bail. ( 6 ) LET the appellants Desh Raj and Oma 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 depositing of 50% of fine prior to the release on bail. ( 7 ) ON depositing 50% fine, the realization of remaining 50% amount of fine shall remain stayed till disposal of the appeal. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, hearing of the appeal is expedited. Office is directed to prepare typed paper book and list the appeal for hearing in the month of July 2009. In case, trial court record has not been received, then the same may be summoned by urgent requisition. .