BEERAN LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the motion to enlarge the appellant on bail pending disposal of the Appeal before this Court. Appel­lant, Beeran Lal, has been convicted by the Session's Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Session's Trial No. 443 of 2000. He has been sentenced, along with Rajan Lal and Prabhu Charan to undergo life imprisonment for an of­fence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 I.PC. The two others are on bail. The motion has been argued at length. In order to deal with the ar­guments advanced on behalf of the appellant, we are required to mention a few facts.

(2.) FACTS There was an arrangement be­tween Chote Lai, father of the de­ceased and the said Beeran Lai to sell mutton from their respective- shops for 17 days and 9 days in a month respectively. This arrangement was not adhered to. This led to disputes. Babu Ram was the son of Chote Lai (PW1). Apart from the shop at Pada Gaon, Chote Lai had one more shop at Sitargang, which was located op­posite the shop of Beeran Lai. On 17th July 2000, when Babu Ram was going to his shop at Pada Gaon via their shop at Sitargang, he was at­tacked by Beeran Lai, Rajan Lai and Prabhu Charan. The deceased, Babu Ram was told not to go to his shop at Pada Gaon, to which he objected. At that stage, he was attacked with knives. The injured Babu Ram ran into his shop of Sitargang. The three accused followed Babu Ram into his shop. In the shop, an employee by the name Rahul was there. Babu Ram was murdered inside his shop. The incident took place on 17th July 2000 at 3:30 p.m. This is the basic case of the prosecution. Chote Lai (PW1) was the informant. Rahul (PW2) was the eye-witness. On the basis of the evidence on record, all the three. accused were convicted under section 302/34 I.PC. and sen­tenced to life imprisonment as stated above.

(3.) ISSUE The single question which we have to decide in this case is whether the appellant is entitled to bail ?