HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6736 of 2024 Court No. - 43
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
HON'BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application
Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Mishra and Sri J. Shubham, learned counsels for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. This bail application has been moved on behalf of appellants- applicants, Dharmendra and Bhoora, praying to enlarge them on bail in Sessions Trial No. 644 of 2016 (State vs. Dharmendra and Another) arising out of Case Crime No. 202 of 2016 under Sections- 302/34 IPC and Session Trial No. 645 of 2016 (State vs. Dharmendra) arising out of Case Crime No. 203 of 2016 under Sections- 3/25(1B) (a) Arms Act and Session Trial No. 646 of 2016 (State vs. Bhoora) arising out of Case Crime No. 221 of 2016, under Sections 25(1B) (b) Arms Act, Police Station- Vishungarh, District- Kannauj, during the pendency of this appeal.
The prosecution case is that the F.I.R was lodged by first informant Smt. Guddi on 03.10.2016 at 07.00 hrs against appellants which is registered Case Crime No. 202 of 2016 under Sections 302 IPC at Police Station Vishungarh, District Kannauj mentioning therein that on 3.10.2016 at about
6.00 a.m. Surendra, the husband of the deceased was coming back from jungle after attending call of nature and when he reached at the house of Meghnath, appellants fired at him and caused his death and incident was seen by her as well as her daughter.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the post-mortem examination report of deceased states that deceased sustained fire arm wound of entry and three incised wound of which no explanation was given Versus
Counsel for Appellant(s) : J Shubham, Jitendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Dharmendra And Another
.....Appellant(s)
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
1
in the first information report. Subsequent to postmortem of body of the deceased in additional statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. the daughter of first informant by way of improvements stated that firearm injury was caused to deceased by appellant no. 1 while appellant no. 2, Bhura, caused him injuries by knife. During the arrest, a live 8 mm cartridge was shown in Dharmendra's pants pocket, and the murder weapon, a "tamancha," with an empty 8 mm shell in its barrel, was also recovered at Dharmendra's behest and recovery of knife from appellant no. 2, Bhura ,on police custody remand on 17.11.2016 from public place has falsely been planted of which there is no independent witness. Appellants are real brothers and they had no motive to cause death of deceased, Surendra, who happened to be real uncle (chacha ) of appellants. Murder of deceased was committed by some unknown persons who could not be identified and appellants have been falsely implicated on the basis of suspicion.
Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the F.S.L report confirms that the bullet extracted from the deceased individual corresponds to a .315 bore, but it could not be determined whether it was discharged from the tamancha recovered from the accused, Dharmendra. No marks on the shell found in the barrel were found to be consistent with being fired from the recovered tamancha. It is noted that the F.S.L report was received after the conclusion of the investigation, therefore, the cartridge used in the shooting could not be retrieved. The F.S.L report does not discount the possibility that the recovered tamancha was used in the crime. Still, it indicates that the shell recovered was not discharged from the recovered tamancha. No forensic report has been produced regarding the knife recovered. The prosecution has roped a false recovery of country made pistol and knife against the appellants which is totally false. First Information Report was lodged after a long delay and prosecution has not explain the delay if vitiates entire prosecution version. The appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to malafide and ulterior motive for grab the property of the appellants because deceased is real uncle of the appellants. There is no independent eye witness against the appellants of committing the alleged crime. Both the appellants are in jail for more than 4 years. They are in jail since 31.05.2024 and have no criminal history to their credits. They were on bail during trial. This appeal is of the year 2024. It is not likely to be heard in near future.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of applicants- appellants and has pointed out that the appellants have criminal history of CRLA No. 6736 of 2024
2
one case each of minor nature. After hearing the rival submissions and considering the fact that there are more than two hundreds criminal appeals being listed before this court per day and it is not humanly possible to decide all on merit. There is remote possibility of hearing of this appeal in near future hence prayer for grant of bail to the appellants are allowed.
Let the applicants-appellants convicted and sentenced in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned. The sentence awarded to applicants-appellants shall also remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal.
Applicants-appellants shall not transfer, sell, alienate or create any charge on the immovable property in their names, while on bail save with leave of this court.
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.
The appellants-applicants are directed to deposit 50% of fine within a period of one month from the date of their release from jail. Remaining 50% of fine shall remain stayed till the pendency of criminal appeal. It is made clear that in case, the fine is not deposited within the time as specified above, the same shall be recovered in accordance with law.
Order on Criminal Appeal
Lower court record has been received. Office is directed to get the paper book prepared within six weeks. List this appeal for hearing in due course.
August 24, 2026
Rohit CRLA No. 6736 of 2024
3
(Vinai Kumar Dwivedi,J.) (Siddharth,J.)
3