- (1.) HEARD Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
(2.) THIS is second bail application moved on behalf of the appellant Shiv Pratap @ Sonu with a prayer that he may be released on bail during pendency of this appeal which has been filed against the judgement and order dated 22.10.2009 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 4, Bareilly in S.T. No. 1020 of 2003 whereby he has been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 364, 302/34, 201 IPC.
(3.) THE first bail application moved on behalf of the appellant Shiv Pratap @ Sonu has been rejected on 31.01.2012 after perusing the lower court record. The facts in brief of this case are that P.W. 1 Akhilesh Chandra Mishra lodged the FIR on 23.3.2003 at 11.45 P.M. in respect of the incident occurred on 23.3.2003 at about 9.30 A.M. alleging therein that his son Anup Kumar Mishra (deceased) who was deep and dump was called by the appellant Shiv Pratap @ Sonu and Chhotey Lal by signal and intention and he was taken away, at that time the first informant, his younger son Atul Kant Mishra, his brother -in -law Bhagwan Das and his other family members were present at the shop because his shop and house were in the same building. There had been a hot exchange between the deceased Anup Kumar Mishra and the appellant Shiv Pratap @ Sonu prior to Holi festival on account of tailoring, the tailoring charges were due upon the appellant Shiv Pratap @ Sonu and Chhotey but after Holi festival the appellant and Chhotey again started to meet with the deceased. The deceased did not return to his home up to 11.00 P.M. then first informant went to the house of Radhey Lal and made an inquiry about the whereabouts of the deceased, the appellant Shiv Pratap @ Sonu and Chhotey, on that inquiry Radhey lal suffered from sweating, he was confused and could not given the proper reply which led to a suspicion that some unto wards has occurred with Anup Kumar Mishra. The appellant and Chhotey Lal were robust and out of control. The deceased were aged about 29 years, he was bearing ready made Paizama and T -shirt, it was apprehended in a pre planned manner, the deceased was killed by the appellant and Chhotey. The appellant, co -accused Chhotey Lal and Hori Lal were apprehended by the police, they made confessional statement before the police and the disclosure made by the police Chhotey and Hori Lal, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the field of Samir Chaudhary, the same was taken out by digging the earth. They taken out a Paizama, a t -shirt which was blood stained and having the cut marks by digging the land from the filed of Natthu on 24.3.2003 and on he same day near the place of recovery of the clothes of the deceased, one chhuri having the blood stayed was taken out by the appellant and co -accused by digging the mud and on the same day one spade by which the digging was made was recovered at the pointing out of the appellant and other co -accused persons. The I.O. made the recovery memos of the above mentioned recovered items. The I.O. found the blood at the place of the incident, the blood stained earth and plain earth were taken by the I.O., its memos were also prepared. On the same day i.e. 24.3.2003 inquest report was prepared in which the names of the appellant and other co -accused persons were disclosed as accused.;