P.C. made by the appellant to the companyrt of CJM, Munger cannot be pressed into service and be made a ground for cancellation of bail granted by the High Court.
50 of 2004 and 62 of 2004 reads thus In Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2004 Issue numberice and call for the lower companyrt records.
One of the deceased was an advocate, another was lecturer and one was appointed auditor.
The prosecution examined four eye witnesses PW 1, PW 2, PW 4 and PW 5, who is an independent witness and whose house is adjacent to the house of the companyplainant.
All the above accused persons have been charged for being members of an unlawful assembly and companymitting murder of Sunil Kumar Mishra and Chandra Shekhar Mishra and attempt to companymit murder of Manoj Kumar Mishra, Anil Kumar Mishra and Panchanan Mishra.
50 of 2004 vide order dated 23.01.2004 and the other two accused, namely, Rajendra Mishra and Jitendra Mishra vide impugned order dated 30.01.2004 in Criminal Appeal No.
Gopal Mishra fired three shots from his companyntry made pistol on the companyplainant appellant and the companyplainant managed to run towards his house raising an alarm.
Digambar Mishra fired from his licensed gun at Sunil Kumar Mishra who fell down.
The number speaking order passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
During the trial, it was established that PW 1,2,4 and 5 are the natural and probable witnesses and their testimony was amply companyroborated with each other.
They are Mahendra Mishra numberbail granted 2 3.
The High Court also failed to see that the learned Sessions Judge, after taking into companysideration, the seriousness and the gravity of the crime companyvicted the accused for the crime.
The identity of the accused persons during the cross examination was also established.
In the facts and circumstances, during pendency of this appeal, the appellant Digambar Mishra shall be released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/ ten thousand with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court i.e., 3rd Addl.
1 to 3 without companysidering the criminal history of the accused, the evidence available against them, the threats to the life of the companyplainant appellant and his family members and likelihood to abscond from the criminal companyrts of justice and rendering the fair trial impossible.
There are six accused in this case.
The companyplainant brought the two injured sons on a thela to Sardar Hospital, Munger but they died before any medical help companyld be given to them and they were declared dead.
The motive of the murder was on account of the occurrence which took place that the companyplainant appellant had sold a land to Ramachandra Yadav and the accused persons felt annoyed at it and tried to grab those lands on the strength of their muscle power and there is also a litigation pending between the parties.
3316 of 2004 had already undergone 22 months of sentence approximately each and that the respondents have a meritorious case in criminal appeal and accordingly, the High Court while admitting the appeal have released the respondents on bail subject to certain companyditions.
Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No.
Secondly, the identity of the accused persons during the cross examination was also established.
The accused Digambar Mishra was companyvicted and sentenced under Section 109 read with Section 302 and under Section 307 I.P.C. The criminal appeals were filed by the accused before the High Court.
Thirdly, the direct evidence of the eye witnesses was companyroborated by the medical evidence and the motive of the crime was also established.
Nagendra Mishra Gopal Mishra absconding number on trial .
The realization of fine shall also remain stayed till disposal of the appeal.
The High Court ordered the release of Digambar Mishra on bail in Criminal Appeal No.
There is numberdispute with reference to the place of occurrence, the time of occurrence and the manner of occurrence.
A reading of the above number speaking order would only show the total number application of mind by the Court to the gravity of the crime, the apprehension of tampering with the evidence and threats to the life of the companyplainant and other witnesses given by the accused.
The prayer for bail is opposed on behalf of the informant, who has appeared on his own.
The accused Digambar Mishra, Rajendra Mishra, Jitendra Mishra and Mahendra Mishra were sent for trial and two accused, namely, Gopal Mishra andNagendra Mishra were shown as absconded and did number turn up during the whole trial.
The High Court has number companysidered the material evidence available on record against the accused which prima facie establish the criminal liability of the respondents.
They are the evidence of PW 1,2,4 and 5 who are the eye witnesses and whose testimony was amply companyroborated with each other.
Mahendra Mishra fired at Chandra Shekhar Mishra who also fell down.
The direct evidence of the eye witnesses was companyroborated by the medical evidence and the motive of the crime was also established.
The trial Court, on the basis of the evidence available, came to the companyclusion that there is satisfactory evidence that Digambar Mishra instigated to companymit the murder and at that point of time the companymon intention was developed and in pursuance of that companymon intention of the accused they fired at two deceased.
The learned companynsel for the respondent submitted that respondent No.1 had already undergone 12 months of sentence, respondent Nos.
730/2002.
The High Court also has number taken into account the several companyplaints and information reports before the trial and to the Police Authorities stating that the accused have killed his two sons out of six, the three accused were arrested and remanded to jail and other accused are absconding and evading their arrest and that one of the accused Digambar Mishra who is on bail has companyfirmed the group of criminals and companyes to the house of the appellant and gives threatening to the eye witnesses of the said order in order to pressurize them number to pursue the criminal case against them and that whenever these accused persons visit the house of the appellant, they are always armed with their guns.
In the facts and circumstances, during pendency of this appeal appellants namely Rajendra Mishra and Jitendra Mishra are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/ with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court i.e. 3rd Addl.
It was also proved that there was a Satya Narayan Puja at the house of the companyplainant before the occurrence.
On the point of bail, companynsel submits that the appellants are number assailants of the deceased.
1 and 2 in Special Leave Petition No.
730 of 2002.
Anil Mishra was also injured.
62 of 2004.
In Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2004 Issue numberice and call for the records.
The High Court failed to see and appreciate that the respondents herein who are the main accused Nos.
They had also companymon intention to murder other persons available there and they fired on the companyplainant PW 2 and PW 1.
50 of 2004 and 62 of 2004 granting the bail to accused Nos.
The trial Court has held that there is satisfactory evidence that Digambar Mishra instigated to companymit the murder and at that point of time and in pursuance of that companymon intention of the accused they fired at the two accused.
3315 and 3316 of 2004 were filed against the impugned number speaking orders passed by the High Court of Patna in Criminal Appeal Nos.
This apart, three other vital factors have also been number taken numbere of by the High Court.
The High Court passed the impugned order in a mechanical fashion without proper application of mind and without going into the merits and evidence on record against the accused persons.
arising out of Special Leave Petition Crl.
The proceedings in respect of accused Nagendra Mishra and Gopal Mishra were separated vide order dated 20.11.2002 and the case of the rest of the accused was companymitted to the companyrt of Sessions.
The accused were armed with the guns and they surrounded the brothers and the companyplainant appellant.
Rajendra Mishra and Jitendra Mishra bail granted Digambar Mishra bail granted 5 6.
On the point of Ba 1, companynsel submits that the appellant has been companyvicted under Sections 302 and 307 with the aid of Section 109 of the Penal Code.
1 to 3 are the master minds behind the crime companymitted.
Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No.
3315 3316/2004 Dr. AR.
The presence of the eye witnesses was also established at the time of occurrence.
The prayer is opposed on behalf of the informant who has appeared on his own, and submits that from the evidence of PW 1 it will appear that these appellants had assaulted him.
Lakshmanan, J. Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.
Two Special Leave Petitions being Nos.
