Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3304 (ALL)

Nekiram & Ors. v. State of U. P.

2010-10-25

ABDUL MATEEN, YOGENDRA KUMAR SANGAL

body2010
Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J.:- Crl. Misc. Application No. 31269 (B) of 2010. This is an application for bail moved along with the instant appeal. Heard Shri Salil Mohan, learned counsel for the applicants/appellants, and the learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. Appellants Nekiram, Ramakant, Lakhram and Ashok have preferred the instant appeal against judgment and order dated 08.03.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Lakhimpur Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 202 of 2009 whereby they have been convicted under Sections 302/149, 147, 201 IPC and have been sentenced for maximum term of life imprisonment with fine stipulation. 3. We have gone through the judgment and record of lower court, including FIR and statement of witnesses. 4. As it comes out that FIR of the incident was lodged by one Ramgopal, who has been examined as PW-1, father of the deceased that he apprehends that his son has been kidnapped by the accused-appellants since he was having old enmity with them on 18.02.2006 and on 20th February, 2008 his body was recovered; deceased-Suresh although is said to have been kidnapped by the appellants on 18.02.2008, but his body was found in a cane-field of one Atal Shukla on 20.02.2008. 5. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that in statement of PW-1 it has come that he was informed by his another son Haresh that his brother has been taken away by the accused-appellants whose body was found on the 3rd day in a cane-field. Further it was argued that Raj Kishore and Ram Naresh had informed the complainant before lodging of the FIR that his son has been taken away by the accused appellants, but submission is that if the complainant was informed with respect to kidnapping of his son by the appellants with whom there was a long-standing enmity on 18.02.2008, as such, there was no question as to why information received by the complainant from Raj Kishore Ram Naresh has not been mentioned in the FIR. Further it was submitted that this has been dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge being a major issue in a very casual manner. It is stated that the appellants were on bail during the course of trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to them. Further it was submitted that this has been dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge being a major issue in a very casual manner. It is stated that the appellants were on bail during the course of trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to them. It is further stated that there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard and decided in near future. 6. In view of the above and without commenting any further on merit of the case, we find it a fit case for bail. 7. Let appellants-Nekiram, Ramakant, Lakhram and Ashok, convicts of aforesaid sessions trial, be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 8. Realization of half of the fine is stayed and remaining half of the fine shall be deposited by the appellants within one month from the date of their release on bail. 9. Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned is directed to transmit to this Court photocopies of bond and sureties filed by the appellants to be preserved in the record maintained here.