- (1.) HEARD the parties. Perused the lower court records. Mr. B.M. Tripathi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants in Cr. Appeal No.1093 of 2010, submitted that as per paragraph-53 of the evidence of P.W.8-informant (wife of the deceased), her Devar-P.W.-9 was a literate person, then why her fardbeyan was written by the P.W.-5 -Sagir Khan; and that why fardbeyan was not recorded by the Police Officer; and that Sagir Khan-P.W.5 has said in paragraph-7 & 8 that there was enmity between him and the deceased on the one side and the accused persons on the other side; and that the appellants assaulted by which weapon or took part in what manner has not been described; and that in paragraph Nos. 62 and 63, the informant said that at the time of writing of the fardbeyan, her mental condition was not good and she gave the names of Mazhar Khan and Tanvir Khan by mistake. Therefore, the chances of false implication of the appellants by P.W.-5 cannot be ruled out and that they are in custody for more than three years. He further submitted that one of the main accused-Shahbaj Khan is absconding.
(2.) ON the other hand, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that there may be several reasons for which the Fardbeyan was recorded by P.W.-5, but two witnesses have endorsed the fardbeyan; and that about 8 incised injuries were found on the person of the deceased; and that the allegations against the appellants is that they inflicted injuries on the deceased by sharp cutting weapons in their hands. He further submitted that P.W.-5 has not said that only he had enmity between him and the accused persons rather he along with the deceased and others were on the one side and the accused were on the other side with regards to the certain dispute and that the enmity cuts both ways. He further submitted that P.W.-8 who is the eye witnesses is consistent in her deposition and moreover, the case has been fully proved by the prosecution. He further submitted that the appellants have also taken active part in the crime. Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 1023 of 2010 adopting the said submission, further submitted that only allegation against the appellant is that he caught hold the head of the deceased and Shabaj Khan cut the neck and that the appellant is not the main assailant. Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the State in this case on the other hand adopted the submission of Mr. Ravi Prakash and submitted that the appellant has taken active part in the crime. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals and perusing the lower court records, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellants above named, as it appears that they have actively participated in the crime. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the appellants in the both the appeals is hereby rejected.;