High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Lajja Ram & Others v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 7942 of 2006  RD-AH 1689 (2 February 2007)
Hon'ble Mukteshwar Prasad, J.
Hon'ble K.N. Ojha, J.
We have heard Sri D.P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. We have perused the impugned judgment.
The objection filed on behalf of the State under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is taken on record.
The office is directed to summon the trial court record.
It is contended that appellant no.1 is father and appellants no. 2 and 3 are sons of appellant no.1 and all the three were on bail during trial. It is further contended that so far as the role of appellant nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, they have been assigned the role of catching hold of the deceased and on their exhortation, Sukhram is said to have killed Virendra Singh, son of informant.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has not disputed the aforesaid submissions of the appellant's learned counsel.
Considering the entire submissions made on behalf of the parties and the role assigned to appellants no. 1 and 2 (Lajja Ram and Shivram) also, we are inclined to enlarge the appellants no.1 and 2 ( Lajja Ram and Shivram) on bail during pendency of appeal.
Let the appellants- Lajja Ram and Shivram be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Farrukhabad in S.T. No. 46 of 1999 State Vs. Lajja Ram and others.
Each of the two appellants is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5, 000/- as fine in the court below within a period of one month from today. The recovery of remaining amount of fine shall remain stayed against them only during pendency of appeal.
The bail prayer of appellant no.3 (Sukhram) shall be considered after receipt of record.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.