PANKAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second bail application moved on behalf of the appellant Pankaj Kumar with a prayer that he may be released on bail during the pendency of this appeal, his first bail application has been rejected by another bench of this court on 3.12.2010 after considering the merits of the case.

(2.) THE appellant Manoj Kumar and the co -accused persons Arvind, Dinesh Babu have been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 364,302/34 and 201 I.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1 Pilibihit on 21.7.2008 in S.T. No. 795 of 2003.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant and other co -accused persons have been convicted by the trial court on circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence, other co -accused persons Arvind and Dinesh Babu have filed criminal appeal no. 4521 of 2008, their first bail application has been disposed by another bench of this court on 3.12.2010 by which the prayer for bail of the co -accused Arvind has been refused but the co -accused Dinesh Babu has been released on bail. The conviction of the co -accused Arvind is also based on circumstantial evidence. The second bail application moved on behalf of the co -accused Arvind has been disposed of and he has been released on bail by another bench of this court on 2.7.2013, the evidence of last seen, extra judicial confession and the confessional statement of the co -accused is available against the co -accused Arvind. In addition to, recovery of shirt and pant of the deceased has been made at the pointing out of the appellant Pankaj from the room of his house. The report of Public Analyst with regard to the shirt and pant tallied with the recovery of shirt and pant of the deceased made at the pointing out of the appellant Pankaj from the room of his house. The appellant's hand written letters sent for demanding ransom, has not been tallied with the hand writing of the appellant and the appellant remained in jail more than six years after the order of conviction passed by the trial court. The fact of recovery of the shirt and pant has not been properly proved, in its support only one witness Karpatri Maharaj, P.W. 5 has been examined. According to the prosecution version, the recovery of the shirt and pant of the deceased has been made on 18.5.2003 whereas FIR was lodged on 17.5.2003. Sri Veer Bahadur, who is an independent witness of the recovery, has not been examined by the trial court, recovery of the shirt and pant was planted by the I.O., in such circumstances, the appellant is also entitled for bail, therefore, he may be released on bail.