SHIV CHARAN, VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, JJ.

( 1 ) WE have heard Sri R. D. Dauholia, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A. G. A. for the State on the prayer of bail of the appellant Neeraj convicted by Shri Ashok Kumar Verma, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, bulandshahar in S. T. No. 20/2004 connected with S. T. No 90/2004 and S. T. No. 980/2005, state v. Pankaj Sharma and others, under section 302, 201, 120b I. P. C. , P. S. Ahmadgarh, District Bulandshahar.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued that the co-accused Pankaj, Ajay and sanjay have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 2. 12. 2008. There are similar allegations against the appellant neeraj also and on the ground of parity, he is also entitled for bail. Learned counsel also argued that there was no evidence against the appellant for convicting him and the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in convicting the appellant. It is further argued that this appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the bail.

( 3 ) LEARNED A. G. A. has opposed the bail. However, it has not been shown that case of the appellant Neeraj is distinct from the co-accused Pankaj, Ajay and Sanjay, who have already been granted bail in bail application No. 56258 of 2008.

( 4 ) WE have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and learned A. G. A. and we are of the opinion that the case of this appellant Neeraj is identical to other accused Pankaj, Ajay and sanjay and on the ground of parity he is also entitled for bail.

( 5 ) LET the appellant Neeraj be released on bail in the above case till disposal of the appeal on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the Trial court concerned. Realization of fine to the extent of fifty per cent shall remain stayed till disposal of the appeal. Remaining fifty per cent fine shall be deposited in the Trial court within one month from the date of the order and the appellant shall be released only after depositing fifty per cent of the amount of fine.

( 6 ) THE Sessions Judge concerned shall remit photocopy of the bail bonds to this court for record.

( 7 ) WE are surprised to peruse the order of sentence passed by the Sessions Judge concerned. Surprisingly, the present appellant as well as other accused persons were convicted for the offences under Sections 120b read with Section 302, I. P. C. , as well as Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and 201, I. P. C. Specially, it is material to mention that the. learned Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant Neeraj and other accused persons for the offence under section 120b read with Section 302, I. P. C. to undergo imprisonment for five years. This part of the sentence is devoid of any sanctity of law. If a person has been convicted for the offence under Section 120b read with section 302, I. P. C. , then he cant be sentenced to lesser imprisonment less than life imprisonment. The minimum sentence provided for Section 302, I. P. C. is life imprisonment and fine and even with the aid and assistance of Section 120b, I. P. C. , if a person is held guilty for hatching-up a conspiracy for committing a murder he cannot be sentenced to lesser imprisonment less than life imprisonment. It has been provided in sub-section (1) of Section 120-B, I. P. C. " (1)whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. " section 109, I. P. C. , provides that "whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment for the offence. " Hence, in view of the above provision of law, even for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document