SURENDRA NATH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED AGA has filed objection, which be taken on record.

(2.) HEARD Sri V. P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri P. S. Sengar appearing for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and Sri I. K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the complainant, on the prayer of bail of the appellants Surendra Nath Singh, Shiv Kumari and Dhananjay, who have been convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge/ Additional Sessions Judge, court No. 7, Balia, in S. T. No. 184 of 2003 (State vs. Surendra Nath Singh and another), under section 147, 302/149, 201 IPC, P. S. Kotwali, District Balia and perused the material on record.

(3.) AT the outset, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that one of the co-accused, namely Gopal was also convicted and sentenced in the above session trial, who had been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14. 08. 2008. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to press that the case of the present appellant Surendra Nath Singh is identical to the co-accused Gopal who had already been granted bail. We have considered the relevant portion of the judgement as well as other documents in this connection. The learned counsel for the State tried to dispute this fact by stating that the case of this appellant is distinct from the co-accused Gopal on the ground that he was a servant of Surendra Nath Singh. Otherwise, also the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the case of the appellant namely Surendra Nath Singh is not identical to Gopal. On considering the entire material available on record, we are convinced that the case of the appellant Surendra Nath Singh is not identical to Gopal and hence the appellant-accused Surendra Nath Singh is not entitled to bail.