AMAR SARAN, S.C.AGARWAL, J. - (1.) COUNTER affidavit and written objec­tions filed by learned A.G.A. are taken on record. Since both the aforementioned criminal appeals arise out of a common judgment and order, the prayer for bail in both the appeals is being heard and disposed of by a common order. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the appellants Manohar Singh and Har Narayan, Sri B.N. Singh, Mourned Counsel for the appellants - Raja Ram, Ka­shi Ram, Lala Ram and Hoshiyar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri A.K. Ojha, learned Counsel for the complainant and perused the impugned judgment and trial Court's record.
(2.) IT is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that initially a missing report was lodged by the complainant Parashuram on 25.2.2004 wherein none of the appellants was named. The dead body of the son of the first informant was found naked except an under-shirt on 26.2.2004 within the area of P.S. Sumerpur, District Hamirpur. On 1.3.2004, an F.I.R. was lodged at P.S. Sumerpur wherein only Raja Ram, Kashi Ram, Lala Ram and Hoshiyar Singh were named. Subsequently, on 3.3.2004 at 2:10 p.m., the F.I.R. was lodged naming all the six appellants. It was further submitted that there is no direct evidence of kidnapping and murder. The case rests on circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstances is not complete and is not sufficient to conclusively prove the in­volvement of the appellants in the crime. It was argued that Deena Nath and Nathu Verma, the witnesses named in the F.I.R., were not examined during trial. Raja Ram was arrested on 24.2.2004 itself, but his ar­rest was shown by the police on 4.3.2004 and a false recovery of clothes of the de­ceased and bloodstained knife was planted, which should not be believed, as no sane person would keep the clothes of the de­ceased and bloodstained knife at his resi­dence, but would try to throw it away at the earliest opportunity. Recovery of bloodstained chhuri at the instance of appellant Kashi Ram was also disputed by the learned Counsel. It was further argued that a telegram in respect of the arrest of Raja Ram was sent by his mother on 3.3.2004, which falsifies the arrest of Raja Ram on 4.3.2004. Learned A.G.A. and learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that one year before the incident, appellant Ka­shi Ram had sold his Flour Mill (Aata Chakki) to the complainant for Rs. 7000/-. Later on, he further demanded Rs. 50,000/-from the complainant, which he did not pay and the accused got annoyed and thus there was motive for the crime. The wit­nesses Chhinge (PW-2), Munna Chaurasia (PW-3) and Narain Das (PW-4) had seen all the six appellants with the deceased in a Marshall Jeep bearing registration No. U.P. 92D - 1805 going towards Jhansi. As per the post-mortem report, incised wounds were found on the dead body of the de­ceased Mukesh Kumar the son of the complainant aged 21 years. It was con­tended that a blood-stained knife was re­covered on 4.3.2004 from the house of ap­pellant Raja Ram at his instance and a blood-stained chhuri was recovered at the instance of appellant Kashi Ram on 26.3.2004. There is only last seen evidence against the appellants Lala Ram, Hoshiyar Singh, Manohar Singh and Har Narayan and we are of the opinion that these four appellants can be granted bail. As far as the appellants Raja Ram and Kashi Ram are concerned, blood-stained knife and chhuri respectively were recov­ered at their instance. As per the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra, human blood was found on knife and chhuri. Con­sidering these circumstances, we are not inclined to grant them bail. The prayer for bail of appellants Raja Ram and Kashi Ram is rejected.
(3.) LET the appellants Lala Ram, Hoshiyar Singh, Manohar Singh and Har Narayan, convicted and sentenced by judgment and order dated 23.4.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Jhansi in Sessions Trial No. 158 of 2004 arising out of case crime No. 174 of 2004, under sections 364, 302 I.P.C., PS Month, District Jhansi, be released on bail on each of them executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned on de­positing the fine imposed upon them by the trial Court. Ordered Accordingly;