VIRENDRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Shishodia, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Awadesh Kumar Shukla, learned Brief Holder for the State, on the third bail prayer of appellant No. 2(Sanjeev)

(2.) This third bail application has been filed on behalf of the appellant No. 2 Sanjeev, who has been convicted and sentence under Sec. 302 IPC. The first bail application of the applicant No. 2 was rejected by order dtd. 19/5/2009 and, thereafter, the second bail application was rejected by order dtd. 4/1/2012. This third bail application has been pressed by placing reliance on the order dtd. 25/2/2022 of the Supreme Court in Crl Appeal No. 308/2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4633 of 2021 in Saudan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and the recent order dtd. 9/5/2022 in Suleman Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Misc. Application No. 764 of 2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 491 of 2022), wherein directions have been issued to the State Government to consider remission of sentence of all those convicts, other than those falling in the excepted category of heinous offences, who have served 14 years imprisonment, while their appeal has been pending for a period exceeding 10 years. Directions have also been issued to liberally consider the bail prayer of such convicted appellants.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant has produced a custody certificate dtd. 30/11/2021 issued by the Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Agra to indicate that the appellant No. 2 Sanjeev, by now, has served 14 years, 3 months and 5 days of actual sentence and by including the period of remission has served 16 yeas 10 months and 14 days of sentence. It has been urged that the appellant No. 2 has no previous criminal history and that the incident occurred on account of dispute relating to drawing of electricity line over the field.