HEERA LAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three bail applications are second bail applications filed on behalf of three appellants Nirmal Yadav, . Chhote Lal Yadav and Heera Lal Yadav. The appeal was admitted and after opportunity to the Government Advocate, the bail applications were heard by a Division Bench on 9th May, 2013. One of the other appellants Sanjeev Kumar Yadav was granted bail, whereas the present three applicants were denied bail. The order passed in the connected Criminal Appeal No. 1421 of 2012 is extracted hereinunder:-

(2.) No one has appeared on behalf of Nirmal Yadav to press this second bail application on his behalf, the second bail application has been taken in the revised call. Learned counsel for the complainant Sri. Kamal Kumar Singh as well as the learned A. G. A. is present. The second bail application of Nirmal Yadav is dismissed for want of prosecution.

(3.) We have heard Mrs. Swati Agrarwal, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant Chhote Lal Yadav and Heera Lal Yadav on whose behalf she contends that the prosecution story cannot withstand the test of scrutiny of law and the evidence led by the prosecution itself, particularly with regard to the timing of the incident as disclosed by the prosecution witnesses which in nowhere establishes that the incident is of 6 a. m. in the morning. She contends that the statement of P. W. 1, therefore, is not consistent with the prosecution story and secondly the conviction has been brought about on the basis of unreliable and untrustworthy evidence.