- (1.) These three bail applications are second bail applications filed on behalf of three appellants Nirmal Yadav, . Chhote Lal Yadav and Heera Lal Yadav. The appeal was admitted and after opportunity to the Government Advocate, the bail applications were heard by a Division Bench on 9th May, 2013. One of the other appellants Sanjeev Kumar Yadav was granted bail, whereas the present three applicants were denied bail. The order passed in the connected Criminal Appeal No. 1421 of 2012 is extracted hereinunder:- "Rejoinder affidavit filed by Sri. Vinod Kumar Yadav, learned Advocate, is taken on record. We have heard Sri. Kamal Krishna, learned counsel, in support of bail prayer of the appellant, Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, in Crl. Appeal No. 1421 of 2012; Dr. Satya Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel, in support of bail prayer of the appellants, Nirmal Yadav and Chhote Lal Yadav in Crl. Appeal No. 1464 of 2012; and Sri. Vinod Kumar Yadav, in support of bail prayer of appellant, Heera Lal Yadav, in Crl. Appeal No. 1483 of 2012, and learned AGA for the State as also Sri. Kamal Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the informant. The said appellants have been convicted in S.T. No. 207 of 2007 (arising out of Crime No. 487 of 2007) for offences under sections 302/34 IPC, Police Station Chiraya Kot, District Mau and the maximum sentence awarded to him is life imprisonment together with fine. We have perused the record of the appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants at great length and after going through the allegations and the injuries sustained by the deceased, we do not find any reason to grant bail to appellants Nirmal Yadav, Chhote Lal Yadav and Heera Lal Yadav. The bail prayers of appellants, Nirmal Yadav, Chhote Lal Yadav and Heera Lal Yadav are rejected. However, so far as the appellant, Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, is concerned, he is alleged to have been armed with a knife. From the atopsy report, we have not been able to find any punctured or stabbed wound, which injury the deceased would have received had the knife been used in the incident. Learned AGA could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects. In the situation, we consider it proper to release appellant, Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, on bail. Let the appellant, Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Judge concerned in the above sessions trial number for the above offence. As soon as personal and surety bonds are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by trial Judge concerned to be kept on the record of this appeal. The appellant is allowed one month's time to deposit the amount of fine imposed on him."
(2.) No one has appeared on behalf of Nirmal Yadav to press this second bail application on his behalf, the second bail application has been taken in the revised call. Learned counsel for the complainant Sri. Kamal Kumar Singh as well as the learned A.G.A. is present. The second bail application of Nirmal Yadav is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(3.) We have heard Mrs. Swati Agrarwal, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant Chhote Lal Yadav and Heera Lal Yadav on whose behalf she contends that the prosecution story cannot withstand the test of scrutiny of law and the evidence led by the prosecution itself, particularly with regard to the timing of the incident as disclosed by the prosecution witnesses which in nowhere establishes that the incident is of 6 a.m. in the morning. She contends that the statement of P.W. 1, therefore, is not consistent with the prosecution story and secondly the conviction has been brought about on the basis of unreliable and untrustworthy evidence.;