- (1.) VEERPAL , Nandlal and Nanhe Lal are before this Court with request to grant them bail in pending appeal. From the side of the appellant Shri Satendra Pratap Singh, Advocate submitted that in the present case, the first informant who is the brother of the deceased, has come up with the case that he has received information of the incident in question from Nirmala (PW -2) and thereafter he has proceeded to lodge the First Information Report, whereas? Smt. Nirmala has taken a complete U -turn that she has never proceeded to inform the first informant of the alleged incident in question and in the criminal trial. PW1 Sarvesh Kumar is not at all an eye witnesses of the incident in question and there are two other eye witness Smt. Nirmala (PW2) and Ram Swaroop (PW3), and none of the aforementioned prosecution witness have supported the case of the prosecution as at no point of time they have ever proceeded to mention about the complicity of the appellants in the crime in question. In view of this it has been stated that this is a case of virtually no evidence and accordingly, the bail in question should be allowed in favour of the appellants.
(2.) LEARNED AGA has opposed the bail and submitted that there is ring of truth in the prosecution story that has been set up and in such a situation and in this background, bail should not be granted as in the present case, the report of the ballistic expert corroborates the theory that has been set up by the prosecution.
(3.) THIS Court has proceeded to examine the evidence of the prosecution witness that has come up on record and finds on prima facie basis that as far as PW1 is concerned he is not an eye witness to the incident in question and there are two other eye witnesses namely Smt. Nirmala (PW2) and Ram Swaroop (PW3) and both of them have not at all supported the case of the prosecution. Coupled with this appellant has come up with the specific case that the recovery in question has been manipulated after showing there arrest and as far as country made pistol is concerned, it has no specifications and? as such much reliance cannot be placed on the ballistic report. Looking to the background of case that there is no direct evidence and case thereafter is based on purely circumstantial evidence, and recovery of country made pistols has been seriously assailed, in such a situation and in this background on prima face material the appellants deserves to be released on bail. Let the appellants Veerpal S/o Nevaram in Sessions Trial No.309/2008 State vs. Veerpal and others under Section 302/34, 323/34 I.P.C., P.S. Bisalpur, District Pilibhit, and Sessions Trial No.310/2008 State vs. Veerpal and others under Section 25 Arms Act, P.S. Bisalpur, District Pilibhit; Nand Lal S/o Roop Lal in Sessions Trial No.311/2008 State vs. Nand Lal under Section 25 Arms Act, P.S. Bisalpur, District Pilibhit; and Nanhe Lal S/o Ganesh Prasad in Sessions Trial No.312/2008 State vs. Nanhe Lal under Section 25 Arms Act, P.S. Bisalpur, District Pilibhit, be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond each and two solvent sureties of each their family members and/or relatives to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned.;