Shyam Singh and Ram Singh vs The State of U.P.

G.P. Srivastava, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the question of bail during the pendency of appeal.

The appellants Shyam Singh. Ram Singh, Shobha Singh, Vishal Singh, Vijay Singh, Shailendra Singh and Amit Singh who have been convicted in offence under Sections 147/364 read with 149 I.P.C. and were sentenced to one year and 10 years respectively.

The learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that there is no motive on the part of the appellants to abduct the abductee deceased Poonam Singh. He has further argued that the appellants have been acquitted from the offence u/s 302/149 I.P.C. He has further argued that the place of occurrence has been described as a Hotel which does not exist and the evidence of defence witness D.W. 1 Chaukidar Ram Das has illegally be discarded

There is eye witness account of the occurrence. The three eye witnesses have been produced in the case. The existence of Hotel has been admitted by accused Amit Singh in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. who is the son of appellant accused Shobha Singh but stated that no food was served in the Hotel. The motive looses its importance when there is eye witness account of the occurrence. Any finding on the reliability of D.W. 1 Chatikidar would amount to prejudging the case. It is immaterial that the appellants were acquitted of offence u/s 302 I.P.C. The offence u/s 364 I.P.C. is equally a grave offence and the manner of occurrence shows that a young man was kidnapped in presence of a number of persons in a busy place just in the evening in a most daring manner who was ultimately murdered

In view of law laid down in Krshori Lal v. Roopa and Ors. 2004 SCC (Crl.) 2021 I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellants. The prayer for bail is refused.