JUDGMENT : Saumitra Dayal Singh, Vinod Diwakar, JJ. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the counsel for the appellants is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Noor Mohammad, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.4432 of 2023 (Mahendra Pal Vs. State of U.P.) and Criminal Appeal No.4426 of 2023 (Patwari Vs. State of U.P.), Sri Rajesh Kumar Madhesiya, learned counsel for the State and perused the record. 3. The present bail applications have been filed on behalf of the appellants Mahendra Pal and Patwari with a prayer to suspend the sentence and to release them on bail in Sessions Trial No.76 of 2013 (State Vs. Mahendra Pal and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 221 of 2011, under Sections 302/34 IP.C., Police Station Sajeti, District Kanpur Nagar and the maximum sentence awarded to them is life imprisonment. 4. Submission is, in case of single gun shot injury suffered by the deceased, clear case of false implication exists to the extent the appellant Patwari has also been implicated. The solitary gun shot injury of which medical evidence exists is attributed to appellant Mahendra Pal only. In that regard, it has been further stated that the motive attributed is wholly unreal, inasmuch as the wife of the deceased is alleged to have eloped with appellant Mahendra Pal, therefore, Mahendra Pal may never have any motive to cause such injury. 5. In the above context, it has been stated that the there was fight between the parties, in which the occurrence was caused. To that extent, the ingredients of the offence proven may not travel beyond Section 304 I.P.C. as there was no premeditation. At present, the appellant Mahendra Pal has remained confined for more than 13 years. The appellant Patwari was on bail during trial. Though he has criminal history, but he has not violated the terms of bail order. The paper books are ready. It will take time before the appeals mature for hearing. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail applications. He submits that there is direct evidence, therefore, no indulgence is warranted at this stage. 7. Though he has criminal history, but he has not violated the terms of bail order. The paper books are ready. It will take time before the appeals mature for hearing. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail applications. He submits that there is direct evidence, therefore, no indulgence is warranted at this stage. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in absence of any criminal history against appellant Mahendra Pal and in case of the other facts shown to exist including 13 years of incarceration already undergone, in absence of any hope of hearing of appeal and keeping in mind the principle contained in Saudan Singh vs. State of U.P. in Criminal Appeal No. 308/2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4633 of 2021 and in Suleman Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Misc. Application No. 764 of 2022 in Crl. Appeal No. 491 of 2022), respectively , the appellants namely Mahendra Pal and Patwari are found entitled to bail. Accordingly, the bail applications pressed on behalf of appellant Mahendra Pal and Patwari are allowed at this stage. 8. Let the appellants-Mahendra Pal and Patwari convicted and sentenced in above mentioned Sessions Trial be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. 9. As soon as personal and surety bonds are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the concerned court to be kept on record. 10. Realization of 50% fine shall remain stayed during pendency of present appeal. Remaining 50% of fine shall be deposited by the appellants within a month of their release. Order on Appeal 11. Office is directed to prepare paper book. 12. List for hearing in due course.