Yogesh Chandra Gupta, J. - (1.) BOTH the appeals arise out of same judgment. The bail applications of the Appellants in both the appeals are heard together and a common order is being passed for both the appeals.
(2.) THESE appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 30.7.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court No. 4, Hardoi, whereunder Appellants Rajkumar, Shishupal, Rajendra and Sarvesh have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 307/34 IPC and 3/25 Arms Act in Sessions Trials No. 164 of 2010 and 165 of 2010 ( Crimes No. 321/09 and 370/09), Police station Sandi, district Hardoi. It is contended on behalf of the Appellants that as per prosecution version Appellants Rajkumar, Shishupal and Rajendra are said to have assaulted the injured Vinod Kumar with lathis but the prosecution version did not find support from medical evidence. It is mentioned in the injury report that except pellet injury on the face of the injured no other visible injury on the part of the body was found. The injured had simply complained of pain in the lower part of his both the legs. It is further argued that Appellants Rajkumar, Shishupal, Rajendra and Sarvesh have been falsely implicated in this case on account of village party bandi, which is evident from the fact that P.W. 5 Shiv Singh who has been examined as eye witness beside complainant himself, did not identify the Appellants in the Court. Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the trial Court has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and has erroneously convicted the Appellants on the basis of conjecture and surmises. It is further contended that the Appellants were on bail during trial, therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Appellants are entitled for bail.
(3.) THE learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail prayer. He submitted that all the Appellants are named in the FIR. Appellant Sarvesh fired at the injured who sustained fire arm injury on the ital part. During investigation fire arm which was used in the incident was also recovered at the instance of Sarvesh. It is argued that the offence is serious, therefore, the Appellants are not entitled for bail.;