- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for Appellant Surendra Nath Singh in support of his bail prayer. Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, counsel for the informant made a statement before us that he does not have any instruction in the second bail application and, therefore, cannot argue. We, therefore, heard learned AGA for the Respondent State and Appellant's counsel.
(2.) THIS is a second bail prayer of the Appellant Surendra Nath Singh. First bail prayer of the Appellant was rejected by this Court vide order dated 4.2.2009. The same day, two other Appellants Shiv Kumari and Dhananjay Singh were allowed bail by our predecessors. The third accused Gopal was allowed bail in the connected criminal appeal No. 4001 of 2008. It is submitted by counsel for the Appellant that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and following circumstances are against the Appellant; (1) motive (2) recovery of clothe of the deceased at his pointing out (3) extra judicial confession. Learned Counsel further submitted that Appellant had remained in jail for more than five years, rest all the Appellants have convicted along with Appellant have already been granted bail and so far as motive is concerned, it is a weak evidence. P.W. -2 is the only witness of recovery examined by the prosecution. Relying upon internal page 2 of the deposition of P.W. -2, which is at page 18 of the paper book, it was submitted that the said witness is No. witness of recovery as when he reached at the spot, recovery had already been made by the I.O. regarding attires (kurta, pajama and gamchha) of the deceased. Learned Counsel further submitted that it is a categorical deposition of P.W. 2 that when he reached nauka gaon ghat then SI Surendra Singh was already holding aforesaid attires in his hand and it was the I.O., who had informed P.W. -2 that the attire belongs to the deceased. Learned Counsel further submitted that since it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the circumstances did not complete the chain, other accused convicted along with the Appellant, have already been granted bail, chance of hearing of the appeal is remote as the appeal was already heard earlier but the order could not be delivered and, therefore, Appellant should be allowed bail. For the said submission, Appellant relied upon Apex Court judgment in SLP No. 2356 of 2010 Kushal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh copy of which was produced before us, which we have take on record.
(3.) LEARNED AGA could not dispute the said fact that the Appellant had already remained in jail for five years. There are scanty chance of appeal being heard and it is a case of circumstantial evidence.;