Usman and Another and Muzammil vs State of U.P.

Since both the aforementioned criminal appeals have been filed against a Judgment and order dated 14.4.2010 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Meerut, the prayer for bail in both the appeals is being considered and decided by this common order.

It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that although country made pistols were assigned to all the co-accused, but specific role of firing on the deceased was assigned to Muzammil. It is further argued that as Dibiya was burning inside the house, hence there was no source of light when the incident took place. There was no motive to commit the crime and it was a blind murder and that the report was lodged falsely.

Learned Additional Government Advocate argued that the main role of firing has been assigned to Muzamil, whose case is distinguishable from that of the other appellants. There was some source of light and there was motive as the accused were demanding money, which the deceased refused to pay.

Having considered the submissions of the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellant Muzammil. His prayer for bail is accordingly rejected.

So far as appellants Usman and Niyazi are concerned, they are entitled to bail. Let the appellants Usman and Niyazu, convicted and sentenced in ST No. 777 of 2002, arising out of crime No. 46 of 2002, u/s 302 IPC, PS Saroorpur, district Meerut, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.