- (1.) M. L. Singhal, J. The four accused-appellants, namely, Nandu Mallah, Pancham Mallah, Ram Ashrey Pasi and Ganga Pasi have been awarded death sen tence by learned Special/additional Ses sions Judge, Mirzapur by his judgment dated 9 February, 1999. They have applied for bail.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-appellants, Shri J. S. Sengar and the learned A. G. A at length. The learned counsel for the ac cused-appellants vehemently argued that under the new Code of Criminal Proce dure the whole concept of law relating to death penalty has been changed and only in rarest of the rare cases death penalty can be awarded by the Court. The learned counsel for the appellants got me waded to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 (17) ACC 4 (Sum) (SC): AIR 1980 SC 898; and also relied upon the decision of this Court earlier in Smt. Usha v. State of U. P. , 1995 JIC 60 (All); where an accused woman awarded death sentence, was en larged on bail by this Court, pending con firmation of death sentence by this Court and the judgments of the Supreme Court in Bullu Das v. State of Bihar, 1999 (1) JIC 180 (SC); and in Shaikh Ayub v. State of Maharashtra, 1999 (1) JIC 137 (SC ). It was argued that the present case is one where death sentence could not be awarded and, as such, the accused are entitled to bail. In substance the findings of the learned lower Court are, it is not necessary to refer to the individual acts of the four appellants, after committing the murder of one deceased Raj Kumar by 'tangari' and 'chaku' his deadbody was dragged and thrown into the river Ganges, thereafter the neck of the other deceased Ram Narain was separated from the trunk, his both hands were also cut, the trunk of the said deceased was dragged and along with motorcycle of the deceased was sunk into the river Ganges. The learned Sessions Judge in view of the cruelty and brutality of the murder after referring to the relevant case law, has awarded the death sentence. The Court may or may not award death sentence to the four accused- appellants, the matter of confirmation of death sentence is pending before the Court. As regards the case of Smt. Usha v. State of U. P. (supra), that was a case based on circumstantial evidence and the woman accused in view of the cir cumstances of the case, was enlarged on bail pending decision of confirmation of the death sentence. That apart, one of the major con sideration for enlarging or refusing to en large the accused on bail is, whether the accused would jump out the bail or re-ap pear before the Court to receive sentence which may be awarded to him. Whatever may the stringent conditions be imposed, where an accused is sentenced to death, he is most unlikely to return to receive the sentence awarded to him.
(3.) IN view of the above, it is not a fit case for enlarging the accused-appellants on bail. The bail application is, therefore, rejected. Bailrejected. .;