Jitendra Kumar and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

.....of the entire family. loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms. section 168 uses the word just compensation which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. the amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted. - i have gone through the copy of the charge-sheet, which has been filed as annexure-6 to the affidavit, which clearly indicates that a case is made out on the basis of the evidence collected by the investigating agency under section 323, 324 and 506 i. even the perusal of the first information report clearly shows that an offence was committed against the injured persons. 5. considering the facts and circumstances it is expedient in the interest of justice to direct the release of the applicants on bail on their furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court......of the learned counsel for the applicants that these applicants did not particite in the offence cannot be gone into at this stage by this court exercising its jurisdiction under section 482 cr.p.c. separation of grain from the chaff cannot be made on the basis of affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit, meaning thereby that it can be done only after the conclusion of the recording of evidence. in the present case, undoubtedly, state has not preferred to file a counter affidavit. the question raised before me are subject to evidence'and cannot be decided by this court exercising its power under section 482 cr.p.c. at this stage. the questions of fact can always be settled after evidence is taken into consideration.3. this petition is accordingly dismissed.4. however, it is requested by the learned counsel for the applicants that jitendra kumar is a x-ray technician in goverment hospital. thereby he is a public servant. the other co-accused virendra kumar is also serving as a teacher in a private school. therefore, their services will be put in jeopardy if they are retained in jail beyond the period of 24 hours.5. considering the facts and circumstances it is expedient in the interest of justice to direct the release of the applicants on bail on their furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. offences under sections 323, 324, i.p.c. are bailable offences. so far as offence under section 506 i.p.c. is concerned it is made out or not shall be determined during the trial.