Allahabad High Court
Raghunath vs State Of U.P. on 6 January, 2010
Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2009
Asharfi Lal and others Appellants
Vs.
The State of U.P. Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case.
The appellants Asharfilal, Hariniwash, Pinku, Nanhe, Rakesh and Ram Nivas in S.T.No. 980 of 2005( Crime No. 342/2005) have been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections 147,148 and 304/149 I.P.C. The accused-appellant Nanhey was further convicted and sentenced under Section 3/25( 1-B) Explosive Substances Act. The maximum sentence awarded to them is ten years imprisonment under Section 304 I.P.C.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that in the instant case Km. Sarla had sustained injuries by Kanta which was wielded by Rinku. No other injury was found on the person of the deceased. Rinku, who was the main accused, has been admitted to bail by Hon'ble Mr Justice A.K. Singh,J. under his order dated 7.5.2009,passed in Criminal Appeal No.1045 of 2009. The appellants are in jail since 26.3. 2009. The deceased had received no other injury with the weapon assigned to the applicants; that there is every likelihood of acquittal of appellants in this appeal and final disposal of appeal will take couple of years and as such appellants should be admitted to bail.
However, learned A.G. A. has opposed the bail. Having regard to the quantum of sentence, facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the evidence adduced during trial and arguments advanced by the parties and the probability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let the appellants Asharfi Lal, Hariniwash, Pinku, Nanhe, Rakesh and Ram Niwas be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned provided they deposit fine imposed by the trial court.
The operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 6th July,2009 Tripathi SO Accounts Kindly get reimbursed following amount spent towards purchasing of newspapers for the month of December, 2009.
Days Amount Total 29 Rs.4.00 116 Rs.one hundred and sixteen only (S.P.Tripathi) P.S. 4.1.2010 Employee No.2515 Court No. 25
Writ Petition No.11070 (MB) of 2009 Mani Ram and others Vs. State of U.P. and others Hon'ble A. Mateen J.
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
In pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 17.12.2009 prosecutrix Shiv Pata has been produced by Superintendent Nari Niketan, Faizabad, but the Superintendent Niari Niketan, Faizabad is not present.
Let notice be issued to Superintendent Nari Niketan, Faizabad to be present before this Court on 21.1.2010 along with the latest order passed by the Magistrate keeping Shiv Pata in her custody. Shiv Pata shall also appear on the said date.
Let notice be issued through the C.J.M. Faizabad to the Head Master of Prathmik Vidyalaya, Ahirauli, Rudauli district Faizabad to appear before this Court on the said date along with the Register indicating the admission and School Leaving Certificate issued by him to Shiv Pata, which is annexed as annexure CA1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no. 4.
Although the order dated 23.12.2009 indicates that proscutrix Shiv Pata need not appear before this Court unless required. However,she shall appear along with the Superintendent Nari Niketan, Faizabad on 21.1.2010. C.J.M. Faizabad to ensure presence of prosecutrix and Headmaster of the aforesaid school before this Court on the said date.
Prosecutrix Shiv Pata shall be taken back and confined to the Women Protective Home, Faizabad.
Till her production before this Court on 21.1.2010 the interim order granted earlier shall continue.
On the next date of listing, name of Sri V.P. Katiytar shall be shown as counsel for opposite party.
4.1.10
Tripathi
Court No. 25
Criminal Appeal No.160 of 1982
The State Appellant
Vs.
Bhaskar Pratap Singh Respondent
Hon'ble A. Mateen,J.
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Case called out. Learned counsel for the State is present, but no one is present on behalf of the accused-respondent. Paper book is ready and the appeal is ripe for hearing.
On 23.4. 2008 bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the respondent Bhaskar Pratap Singh, who had appeared before this Court on 22.5. 2008. Today none is present on his behalf, although names of Mr S.P. Shukla Advocate and Mr S.B. Shukla Advocate are shown in the cause list Let notice be issued to Mr S.P. Shukla Advocate and Mr S.B. Shukla Advocate, informing them that the matter will be taken up for hearing on 20.1.2010 and they will remain prepared for the same.
4.1.2010
Tripathi
Court No. 7
Criminal Appeal No.1592 of 2009
Azeem-Ullah .......Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. .......Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No.349/2005 (case crime no.206/1990), appellant Azeem-Ullah has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for three months.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been involved in this case due to enmity. That the appellant is the brother of the injured and both are on litigating terms. That incident is alleged to have occurred in the night between 9/10.8.1990 and the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged in the morning of 10.8.1990 at about 6.45 a.m. and the accused was not named therein, though it was stated in the F.I.R. that the person who had attacked the injured, was recognised. Learned counsel further submitted that on the basis of the evidence available on record, the offence is not made out.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. Injured and accused are brothers and both are on litigating terms. The appellant was not named in the F.I.R. lodged soon after the incident and the F.I.R. was lodged against some unknown person.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the quantum of sentence, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail. Let the appellant Azeem-Ullah be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
23.10.2009
Tripathi
Court No. 7
Criminal Appeal No.2481 of 2009
Anoop Kumar .......Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh .......Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No. 657 of 2007 (case crime no. 423 of 2006), appellant Anoop Kumar has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 363,366 and 342 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 366 I.P.C. is five years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' R.I. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely involved in the case because he belongs to the same village and he was on bail during trial. It was further contended that there is no allegation of rape against the appellant and allegation of rape was against Ram Beer and Ram Sharan, out of which Ram Sharan has been acquitted by the learned trial court on the same evidence on which appellant has been convicted. That on the basis of evidence available on record the offence for which appellant has been convicted is not made out, and there is every hope of success in appeal.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. I have considered the respective submissions made by the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court alongwith the record of the appeal. It is true that there is no allegation of rape against appellant. The allegation of rape was against Ram Beer and Ram Saran and accused Ram Saran has been acquitted by the trial court disbelieving the witnesses produced by the prosecution. The maximum sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is only five years. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that when a person is convicted and sentences to a short term imprisonment, normally rule is that when his appeal is pending, sentence should be suspended by enlarging appellant on bail and rejection can only be by way of exception. In the present case as discussed above, on the same evidence co-accused Ram Saran has also been acquitted against whom the charge was for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the arguments put forward by the parties, probability factors of the evidence on record, term of the imprisonment awarded, conduct of appellant when on bail during the trial and the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Case Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai(supra), I am of the view that it is a fit case for bail and suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Let appellant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M./court concerned on deposit of amount of fine imposed on him by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 5.1.2010 Tripathi Court No. 7 Criminal Appeal No. 3125 of 2009 Nanhoo and another ....Appellants Vs. State of U.P. .......Opp. Party Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Summon the lower court record within fifteen days and list immediately thereafter.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the impugned judgment and order.
The accused-appellants Nanhoo and Daddu have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323/34, 504, 506 (2) I.P.C. and 3(i)(x) S.C. and S.T.Act in S.T.No.37 of 2005 (Case Crime No. 60 of 2000). The maximum sentence awarded to the appellants under Section 3 (i) (x) of SC & ST Act is one year rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.8000/- payable by each of them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment of one month R.I. The appellants were on bail during the trial and are presently on interim bail.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let the appellants Nanhoo and Daddu be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they deposit the fine imposed upon them by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 5.1.2010 Tripathi Crl. Misc. Application No.11455 of 2009.
In re :
Crl. Appeal No.2806 of 2009Chaman Lal Arora Vs. Union of India Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The appeal was lodged late. There was a delay of about 23 days and grounds set forth in the accompanying affidavit are sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The State has also not filed any objection against this application. The application is therefore, allowed and the delay that took place in the presentation of the appeal, is hereby condoned.
5.1.2010 Tripathi Crl. Appeal No.2806 of 2009 Chaman Lal Arora Vs. Union of India Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Admit.
Summon the record within fifteen days. List thereafter for hearing on the prayer for bail.
In the meantime, objection, if any,may be filed.
5.1.2010 Tripathi Crl. Appeal No.3126 of 2009 Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Admit.
Summon the record within fifteen days. List thereafter for hearing on the prayer for bail.
In the meantime, objection, if any,may be filed.
5.1.2010 Tripathi Crl. Appeal No.3124 of 2009 Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Admit.
Summon the record within fifteen days. List thereafter for hearing on the prayer for bail.
In the meantime, objection, if any,may be filed.
5.1.2010 Tripathi Crl. Appeal No.1 of 2010 Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Admit.
Summon the record within fifteen days. List thereafter for hearing on the prayer for bail.
In the meantime, objection, if any,may be filed.
5.1.2010 Tripathi Crl. Appeal No.3127 of 2009 Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Admit.
Summon the record within fifteen days. List in the third week of January, 2010 for hearing on the prayer for bail In the meantime, objection, if any,may be filed.
5.1.2010 Tripathi Crl. Misc. Case No.110154 of 2009 In re :
Crl. Appeal No.2562 of 2008Sushil Vs. State of U.P. Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
This is second application for bail on behalf of the accused appellant. Earlier the prayer for bail was rejected by Hon'ble S.C.Chaurasia,J moved on behalf of the appellant Sushil.
List before the appropriate Bench. 5.1.2010 Tripathi Crl. Appeal No.2154 of 2007 Ram Chandra and others. Vs. State Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
List revised.
None responds to press the prayer for bail and suspension of sentence.
The prayer for bail and suspension of sentence is therefore, refused for non prosecution.
List the appeal for hearing in the hearing list in the next cause list.
5.1.2010 Tripathi Crl. Appeal No.560 of 2008 Raj Kumar @ Raju Vs. State of U.P. Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
List revised.
None responds to press the prayer for bail and suspension of sentence.
The prayer for bail and suspension of sentence is therefore, refused for non prosecution.
List the appeal for hearing in the hearing list in the next cause list.
5.1.2010 Tripathi Crl. Appeal No.2550 of 2008 Prathmesh Vs. State of U.P. Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
List revised.
None responds to press the prayer for bail and suspension of sentence.
The prayer for bail and suspension of sentence is therefore, refused for non prosecution.
List the appeal for hearing in the hearing list in the next cause list.
5.1.2010 Tripathi Crl. Appeal No.2567 of 2009 Ramesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
List revised.
None responds to press the prayer for bail and suspension of sentence.
The prayer for bail and suspension of sentence is therefore, refused for non prosecution.
List the appeal for hearing in the hearing list in the next cause list.
5.1.2010 Tripathi Crl. Appeal No.167 of 2009 Rohit Vs. State of U.P. Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
List revised.
None responds to press the prayer for bail and suspension of sentence.
The prayer for bail and suspension of sentence is therefore, refused for non prosecution.
List the appeal for hearing in the hearing list in the next cause list.
5.1.2010 Tripathi Crl. Appeal No.783 of 2009 Suresh Giri Vs. State of U.P. Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
List revised.
None responds to press the prayer for bail and suspension of sentence.
The prayer for bail and suspension of sentence is therefore, refused for non prosecution.
List the appeal for hearing in the hearing list in the next cause list.
5.1.2010 Tripathi Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2008 Akash Kumar Bhurji Vs. State of U.P. Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Accused was summoned vide order dated 2.12.2009 passed by Hon'ble Rajmani Chauhan,J.
Office to submit report regarding service of notice within seven days.
List immediately thereafter for further orders.
Later on, office submitted report received from the C.J.M., Lucknow. Put up on the date fixed. 5.1.2010 Tripathi Crl. Appeal No.3123 of 2009 Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Admit.
Summon the record within fifteen days. List thereafter for hearing on the prayer for bail.
In the meantime, objection, if any,may be filed.
5.1.2010 Tripathi W.P.No.11643 of 2008 (MB) Lucknow Golf Club and another Vs. State of U.P. and others Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J.
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Sri Umesh Chandra Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner concluded his argument on the application
for recall of order dated 9.9.2009 as well as against the application for impleadment.
List on 12.1.2010 to enable Sri Shalab Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant to advance his arguments.
5.1.2010
Tripathi
Crl. Appeal No.2910 of 2009
Raghunath Vs. State
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
The appellant Raghunath has been
brought in police custody.
Heard appellant Raghuntah and
learned A.G.A. Perused the record of the case.
Appeal is admitted.
The appellant Raghunath states that he is unable to defend himself.
Therefore, an amicus curiae may be provided to him.
Accordingly Sri Shyam Narayan Mishra Advocate is appointed as an amicus curiae to defend the appellant and he will get Rs.5000/- as his fees.
Office is directed to supply paper book within one month to Sri Shyam Narayan Mishra Advocate. List thereafter.
6.1.2010
Tripathi
Crl. Appeal No.2907 of 2009
Jeesukh Vs. State
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
The appellant Jeesukh has been
brought in police custody.
Heard appellant Jeesukh and
learned A.G.A. Perused the record of the case.
Appeal is admitted.
The appellant Jeesukh states that he is unable to defend himself. Therefore, an amicus curiae may be provided to him.
Accordingly Sri Ram Pratap Singh Advocate is appointed as an amicus curiae to defend the appellant and he will get Rs.5000/- as his fees.
Office is directed to supply paper book within one month to Sri Ram Pratap Singh Advocate. List thereafter.
6.1.2010 Tripathi Crl. Appeal No.2567 of 2009 Ramesh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
List revised.
None responds to press the prayer for bail and suspension of sentence.
The prayer for bail and suspension of sentence is therefore, refused for non prosecution.
List the appeal for hearing in the hearing list in the next cause list.
5.1.2010
Tripathi
Crl. Appeal No.06 of 2010
Shailendra Vs State
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Summon the record within fifteen days. List immediately thereafter for hearing on the prayer for bail In the meantime, objection, if any,may be filed.
6.1.2010
Tripathi
Crl. Appeal No.05 of 2010
Lekhai and others Vs State
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Summon the record within fifteen days. List immediately thereafter for hearing on the prayer for bail In the meantime, objection, if any,may be filed.
6.1.2010
Tripathi
Crl. Appeal No.04 of 2010
Smt. Munni Devi Vs State
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Summon the record within fifteen days. List immediately thereafter for hearing on the prayer for bail In the meantime, objection, if any,may be filed.
6.1.2010
Tripathi
Crl. Appeal No. 10 of 2010
Nanhkau Vs State
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Summon the record within fifteen days. List immediately thereafter for hearing on the prayer for bail In the meantime, objection, if any,may be filed.
6.1.2010
Tripathi
Crl. Appeal No. 13 of 2010
Raju Vs State
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Summon the record within fifteen days. List immediately thereafter for hearing on the prayer for bail In the meantime, objection, if any,may be filed.
6.1.2010
Tripathi
Crl. Appeal No. 8 of 2010
Murli and others Vs State
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Summon the record within fifteen days. List immediately thereafter for hearing on the prayer for bail In the meantime, objection, if any,may be filed.
6.1.2010
Tripathi
Crl. Appeal No.9 of 2010
Hari Shankar@ Jhagadu Vs State
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Admit.
Summon the record within fifteen days. List immediately thereafter for hearing on the prayer for bail In the meantime, objection, if any,may be filed.
6.1.2010
Tripathi
Crl. Appeal No.12 of 2010
Mushtaque Ahmad Vs State
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for amendment in the memo of appeal.
He is allowed to incorporate Section 307 and Ahmad after name of accused-appellant.
Learned counsel incorporated the amendment.
Admit.
Summon the record within fifteen days. List immediately thereafter for hearing on the prayer for bail In the meantime, objection, if any,may be filed.
6.1.2010 Tripathi Crl. Appeal No. 3097 of 2009 Jogendra and another Vs. State Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard.
Admit The appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. read with Section 109 I.P.C. The offence under Section 376 I.P.C. is punishable with life imprisonment.
Objection, if any, may be filed within seven days.
Let record be summoned within fifteen days. List thereafter.
6.1.2010 Tripathi Civil Misc. An. No. 121 of 2010 in re W.P.No. 182 of 2003 Ram Asrey Trivedi Appellant Vs.
Add. District Judge Hardoi and others O.Ps. Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
This is an application for recall of the order dated 18.12. 2009, passed by this Court whereby C.M. Application No.1172 of 2007, the application for restoration of writ petition was rejected for non-prosecution.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents.
The grounds mentioned in the accompanying affidavit are sufficient to recall the order dated 18.12.2009, rejecting the application for non-prosecution for restoration of W.P.No. 182 ((RC) of 2003.
Accordingly the application is allowed. List the case for hearing of recall application no. 1172 of 2007 in the next cause list.
6.1.2010
Tripathi
Crl. Appeal No.2909 of 2009
Jagdish Vs. State
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
The appellant Jagdish has been
brought in police custody.
Heard appellant Jagdish and
learned A.G.A. Perused the record of the case.
Appeal is admitted.
The appellant Jagdish states that he is unable to defend himself. Therefore, an amicus curiae may be provided to him.
Accordingly Sri Anurag Singh Chauhan Advocate is appointed as an
amicus curiae to defend the appellant and he will get Rs.5000/- as his fees.
Office is directed to supply paper book within one month to Sri Anurag Singh Chauhan Advocate. List thereafter.
6.1.2010
Tripathi
Crl. Appeal No.2911 of 2009
Mahaveer Vs. State
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
The appellant Mahaveer has been
brought in police custody.
Heard appellant Mahaveer and
learned A.G.A. Perused the record of the case.
Appeal is admitted.
The appellant Mahaveer states
that he is unable to defend himself.
Therefore, an amicus curiae may be
provided to him.
Accordingly Sri Vimal Shukla
Advocate is appointed as an amicus curiae to defend the appellant and he will get Rs.5000/- as his fees.
Office is directed to supply paper book within one month to Sri Vimal Shukla Advocate. List thereafter.
6.1.2010 Tripathi Court No. 7 Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2010 Harimohan alias Munnu and others ....Appellants Vs. State of U.P. .......Opp. Party Hon'ble Vedpal,J. Heard. Admit.
Summon the lower court record within fifteen days and list immediately thereafter.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the impugned judgment and order.
The accused-appellants Harimohan alias Munnu, Pappu alias Hari Krishan, Bachu Lal and Satya Narayan have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 452,323,504,506 I.P.C.. and 3(i)(x) S.C. and S.T.Act in S.T.No. 220 of 2006 (Case Crime No. 172 of 2002. The maximum sentence awarded to the appellants under Section 452 I.P.C. is three years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- payable by each of them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment of one month S.I. The appellants were on bail during the trial and are presently on interim bail.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let the appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they deposit half of the fine imposed upon them by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
6.1.2010 Tripathi Court No. 7 Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2010 Aditya Prasad and others ....Appellants Vs. State of U.P. .......Opp. Party Hon'ble Vedpal,J. Heard. Admit.
Summon the lower court record within fifteen days and list immediately thereafter.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the impugned judgment and order.
The accused-appellants Aditya Prasad, Ramdeen, Anil alias Moti Lal, Bind Kumar and Maheshwari have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 147,323/149,506 I.P.C.. and 3(i)(x) S.C. and S.T.Act in S.T.No. 60 of 2005 (Case Crime No. 17 A of 2001). The maximum sentence awarded to the appellants under Section 3(1)(X) SC and S.T, Act is three years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/- payable by each of them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment of one month imprionsment. The appellants were on bail during the trial and are presently on interim bail.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let the appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they deposit half of the fine imposed upon them by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
6.1.2010 Tripathi Court No. 7 Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2010 Lala Yadav ....Appellant Vs. State of U.P. .......Opp. Party Hon'ble Vedpal,J. Heard. Admit.
Summon the lower court record within fifteen days and list immediately thereafter.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the impugned judgment and order.
The accused-appellant Lala Yadav has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 323,352,504,506 and 452 I.P.C.. in S.T.No. 619 of 2000 (Case Crime No. 163 of 1999). The maximum sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 452 I.P.C. Act is one year rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment of two months imprisonment. The appellant was on bail during the trial and is presently on interim bail.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail. Let the appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed upon him by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 6.1.2010 Tripathi Court No. 7 Criminal Appeal No.2709 of 2009 Shri Ram Yadav and another. .......Appellants Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh .......Opp. Party Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No.385 of 1993 (case crime no.555 of 1992), appellants Shri Ram Yadav and Raj Kumar have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 412 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.3,000/- payable by each of them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.
As per prosecution version, accused appellant Shri Ram Yadav was found in possession of 30 bags of sugar and appellant Raj Kumar was found in possession of twenty five bags of sugar which was the property in relation to which dacoity was committed by two persons namely Ishak Ali @ Mama and Chand Babu. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no evidence against the appellants that they were in knowledge of the fact that the property which was recovered from his possession was property in relation to which dacoity was committed and as such the offence does not fall within the purview of section 412 I.P.C. but at the most it may be an offence under Section 411 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission relied on Moinuddin Mozumdar Vs. State of Assam reported in AIR 1972 SC 655. He further submits that the maximum sentence awarded to them is five years' rigorous imprisonment and that appellants were on bail during trial and the trial was pending against them since 1992 and alleged offence is not made out against the appellants and they have every hope of success in appeal.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. I have considered the respective submissions made by the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court alongwith the record of the appeal. The maximum sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, is only five years. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that when a person is convicted and sentences to a short term imprisonment, normally rule is that when his appeal is pending, sentence should be suspended by enlarging appellants on bail and rejection can only be by way of exception. In the present case, the appellants are facing trial since last 18 years. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the arguments put forward by the :2: parties, probability factors of the evidence on record, term of the imprisonment awarded, conduct of appellants when on bail during the trial, I am of the view that it is a fit case for bail and suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Let appellants be released on bail on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M./court concerned on deposit of amount of fine imposed on them by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 6.1.2010 Tripathi.
Court No. 7Criminal Appeal No.2744 of 2009 Ram Pratap Sinigh Chauhan .......Appellant Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh .......Opp. Party Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No.385 of 1993 (case crime no.555 of 1992), appellant Ram Pratap Singh Chauhan has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 412 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.
As per prosecution version, accused appellant Ram Pratap was found in possession of nine bags of sugar which was the property in relation to which dacoity was committed by two persons namely Ishak Ali @ Mama and Chand Babu. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence against the appellant that he was in knowledge of the fact that the property which was recovered from his possession was property in relation to which dacoity was committed and as such the offence does not fall within the purview of section 412 I.P.C. but at the most it may be an offence under Section 411 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submission relied on Moinuddin Mozumdar Vs. State of Assam reported in AIR 1972 SC 655. He further submits that the maximum sentence awarded to him is five years' rigorous imprisonment and that appellant was on bail during trial and the trial was pending against him since 1992 and alleged offence is not made out against the appellant and he has every hope of success in appeal.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. I have considered the respective submissions made by the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court alongwith the record of the appeal. The maximum sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, is only five years. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that when a person is convicted and sentences to a short term imprisonment, normally rule is that when his appeal is pending, sentence should be suspended by enlarging appellant on bail and rejection can only be by way of exception. In the present case, the appellant is facing trial since last 18 years. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the arguments put forward by the parties, probability factors of the evidence on record, term of the imprisonment awarded, conduct of appellant when on bail during the trial, I am of the view that it 2 is a fit case for bail and suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Let appellant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M./court concerned on deposit of amount of fine imposed on him by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 6.1.2010 Tripathi.
Court No. 7Criminal Appeal No.2416 of 2009 Kalloo and others. ...Appellants Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh .......Opp. Party Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the record of the case.
In S.T.Nos.839 of 2008 (Crime No.1302 of 2008), Kalloo, Mansha Ram and Vishram have been convicted under Section 307/34 I.P.C. In S.T.No.840 of 2008(Crime no.1304 of 2008), appellants Kalloo, Mansha Ram and Vishram @ Vishoo have been convicted under Sections 4/25 of Arms Act. The maximum sentence awarded to the appellants under Sections 307/34 I.P.C. in S.T.No.839/2008 is five years' rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment of two months.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that as per prosecution version, the alleged incident had taken place all of a sudden and there was no pre- mediation. It is further submitted that as per prosecution, the appellant Kalloo had given only one knife blow to injured Qadir and no further attempt was made. The alleged offence does not fall within the purview of Section 307 I.P.C. He further submits that the maximum sentence awarded to them is five years' rigorous imprisonment and that appellants were on bail during trial. There is every hope of success in appeal.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. I have considered the respective submissions made by the parties and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court alongwith the record of the appeal. The maximum sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, is only five years. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that when a person is convicted and sentences to a short term imprisonment, normal rule is that when his appeal is pending, sentence should be suspended by enlarging appellant on bail and rejection can only be by way of exception.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the arguments put forward by the parties, probability factors of the evidence on record, term of the imprisonment awarded, conduct of appellant when on bail during the trial and the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that it is a fit case for bail and suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Let 2 appellants be released on bail on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with :two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M./court concerned provided they deposit amount of fine imposed upon them by the trial court, within one month from the date of their release from jail.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 6.1.2010 Tripathi.
Court No. 7
Criminal Appeal No.1934 of 2009
Ram Rang Dubey .......Appellant
Vs.
The State of U.P. .......Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No.40/2005 (case crime no.228/1999), appellant Ram Rang Dubey has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1) (11) of SC & ST Act. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 376 I.P.C. is ten years rigorous imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.,5000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for three months.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was on bail before his conviction and he has not misused the liberty of bail. It was further submitted that he was implicated on account of enmity and it is admitted case that before one day from the date of incident, marpeet took place between the brother of the prosecutrix and accused appellant and the accused appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. It was further submitted that as alleged, the appellant committed rape on the person of prosecutrix by force but no mark of injury was found on her person. That prosecutrix is a major married woman and was found habitual to sexual intercourse and no independent witness of the incident has been produced though cited in the F.I.R. That there is every hope of success in the appeal.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the arguments put forward by the parties, probability factors of the evidence on record, conduct of the appellant when on bail during the trial and the fact that independent witness has been kept away, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for bail and suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Let appellant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, provided the appellant deposits the amount of fine imposed on him by the trial court. On the amount of fine so deposited the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal. 6.1.2010 Tripathi