Vijay Chaudhari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 July, 2018

[Cites 76, Cited by 2]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vijay Chaudhari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 July, 2018

                          1


  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR
        Criminal Appeal No.3685/2017
        Criminal Appeal No.3772/2017

Dated: 02.07.2018
     Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the
appellants in CRA No.3685/2017 and Shri Jayant
Neekhra, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA
No.3772/2017.
     Shri A.K.Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for
the respondent-State.

Heard on admission.

Admit.

Also heard on IA No.17814/2017 and IA No.18161/2017, which are the applications under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellants Vijay Chaudhri, Abhilash Singh, Vinod More and Shyam Shukla.

The appellants are convicted under Section 304 (Part-II) read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to RI for five years with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default clause.

The allegation against the present appellants is that on the date of incident i.e. on 31.8.2012 the appellants poured kerosene oil over deceased Rahul Joshi and set him on fire due to which he suffered 36% burn injuries and on 3.9.2012 due to septicemia he succumbed to the injuries. Before he passed away, he also gave a dying declaration 2 (Ex.P-9) which was recorded by the Executive Magistrate in which clear allegations against the present appellants have been made.

Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case, inasmuch as the dying declaration (Ex.P-9) cannot be relied upon to base the conviction of the appellants, as the same is doubtful, which is also apparent from the deposition of Dr. Piyush (PW-4), who has admitted that both the endorsement made on the dying declaration were made by him simultaneously after the statement was recorded. He has further stated in para 8 that the statement was recorded before him.

Learned counsel for the appellants have further submitted that the place of incident is also doubtful, as the Investigating Officer Jayant Aglave (PW-16) has admitted that he had found some burn marks at the deceased's home. It is further submitted that a case of suicide has been projected as a case of assault. It is further submitted that the appellants are in jail for more than two years out of five years' RI. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the appellants be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer of the appellants, and has submitted that the dying declaration is 3 unequivocal about the involvement of the appellants.

After considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, this Court finds that the appellants have made out a case for suspension of jail sentence. Accordingly, the present applications (IA No.17814/17 & IA No.18161/17) is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellants namely Vijay Chaudhari, Abhilash Singh and Vinod More in CRA No.3685/2017 and appellant Shyam Shukla in CRA No.3772/2017 deposit the entire fine amount before the trial Court, then the execution of their jail sentence shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22/10/2018 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

Digitally signed by MANZOOR

(Subodh Abhyankar) AHMED Date: 2018.07.03 16:55:15 +05'30' Judge Ansari 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1117/2016 Dated: 20.06.2018 Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri D.K.Paroha, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent-State.

Heard on IA No.8122/2016, which is a application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Pappu @ Dhanraj Lodhi.

The appellant is convicted under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and sentenced to RI for five years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and RI for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause.

Considering the statements of Prabhulal (PW-

5), brother of deceased Chhotibai, as also Mohar Singh (PW-9), father of the deceased and Kala Bai (PW-10), mother of the deceased, no case is made out for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant. Accordingly, IA No.8122/2016 is hereby dismissed.

However, looking to the period of incarceration of the appellant, which is around two years, office is directed to list the matter for final hearing under the caption of "High Court Expedite Matters".

After going through the record as also statement made by the prosecutrix, the present application (IA No.579/18) is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the entire fine amount before the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Bhailal Saket shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22/10/2018 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge Ansari 6 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.5984/2017 Dated: 22.06.2018 Shri Ankit Nema, Advocate on behalf of Shri SD Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Sharad Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent-State.

Heard on admission.

Admit.

Also heard on IA No.579/2018, which is a application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Bhailal Saket.

The appellant is convicted under Sections 342 and 376 read with Section 511 of IPC and sentenced to RI for one year with fine of Rs.1000/- and RI for five years with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default clause.

After going through the record as also statement made by the prosecutrix, the present application (IA No.579/18) is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the entire fine amount before the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Bhailal Saket shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one 7 surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22/10/2018 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge Ansari 8 HIGHT COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1300/2018 Dated: 09.05.2018 Shri Kam Sharan Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Manish Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent-State.

Heard on admission.

Admit.

Heard on IA No.2521/2018, which is a application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Hari Prasad.

The appellant is convicted under Section 409 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to RI for five years with fine of Rs.50,000/- with default clause.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case specially the fact that the appellant has already undergone the substantive jail sentence, the present application (IA No.2521/18) is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the entire fine amount before the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Hari Prasad shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his 9 furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22/10/2018 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge Ansari 10 HIGHT COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.1246/2018 Dated: 09.05.2018 Shri K.S.Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Manish Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent-State.

Heard on admission.

Admit.

Heard on IA No.2432/2018, which is a application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant Manglesh Uike.

The appellant is convicted under Section 409 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to RI for five years with fine of Rs.50,000/- with default clause.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case specially the fact that the appellant has already undergone the substantive jail sentence, the present application (IA No.2432/18) is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the entire fine amount before the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Manglesh Uike shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his 11 furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22/10/2018 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge Ansari 12 Criminal Appeal No.1327/2015 26.08.2015 Shri AD Mishra, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.9622/2015, a application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 363, 366 of IPC and sentenced to maximum period of ten years' RI with total fine of Rs.1200/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He is ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. According to the educational record, the prosecutrix was 17 years and 8 months old. In the ossification test, she was found to be 15 to 16 years of age, however two years may be added in computation of age while considering the ossification test. When the prosecutrix (PW-1) was examined, the trial Court has marked her age to be 18 years of age. The prosecutrix was definitely above 18 years of age. According to her statement, she remained with the appellant for a longer period without any resistance. No alleged offence is made out against the appellant. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.9622/15 is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the entire fine amount before the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Ajay @ Ajju shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 26/10/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time. List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 14 Criminal Appeal No.1394/2015 14.08.2015 Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellants. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.10423/2015, a application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants No.2 and 3.

The appellants No.2 and 3 have been convicted of offence punishable under Section 368 of IPC and sentenced to seven years' of RI with fine of Rs.500.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was alleged against the co-accused that he committed rape upon the prosecutrix. However, the prosecutrix (PW-2) in para 2 of her statement has accepted that when she was taken by the co- accused to the house of appellants No.2 and 3, the co-accused told the appellants No.2 and 3 that the prosecutrix was their daughter-in-law. However, the prosecutrix did not say that she contradicted such fact before the appellants. She resided with the appellants for a longer time and they though that the prosecutrix was wife of the co-accused. No offence under Section 368 of IPC is made out against the present appellants. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then their appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.10423/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellants No.2 and 3 namely Sunder Singh Pradhan and Rambai Pradhan shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) each with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 29/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 16 Criminal Appeal No.1315/2015 10.08.2015 Shri Shailendra Singh, Advocate for the appellants. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Learned counsel for the State takes notice on behalf of the State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.9508/2015, a application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.

The appellant has been convicted of offence punishable under Section 397 of IPC and sentenced to seven years' of RI.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a youth of 25 years of age. There was no named FIR against the appellants, though he was identified in the test identification parade and memo Ex.P-46 was prepared. But the victim Krishna Prasad (PW-11), who identified the appellant has accepted in the cross examination that the appellant was shown to him prior to arrangement of test identification parade. It is alleged that some diesel was recovered from the appellant, which was not identifiable. The chain of circumstantial evidence is broken. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.9508/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Ramdas shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 1/10/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 18 Criminal Appeal No.1298/2015 10.08.2015 Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Advocate for the appellants. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Learned counsel for the State takes notice on behalf of the State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.9358/2015, a application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.

The appellants have been convicted of offence punishable under Sections 397 of IPC and sentenced to seven years' of RI, whereas appellant Gorelal @ Krishnapal Loniya is also convicted of offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to one year's RI with fine of Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no named FIR against the appellants, though they were identified in the test identification parade and memo Ex.P-46 was prepared. However, the victim Krishna Prasad (PW-11), who identified the appellants has accepted in para 9 of his statement that there was dark and therefore he could not see the actual culprit. However, the culprits were shown to him at the police station and thereafter he could identify them. Similarly, only some diesel has been recovered from the appellants and no specific identification of such diesel could be shown. It is also alleged that one bucket was recovered from the appellant Shiv Kumar, however there was no specific identification mark shown by victim Krishna Prasad (PW-11) as to how he 19 identified the bucket. Actually the bucket was in possession of the cleaner of the truck and cleaner could identify that bucket. Such bucket is easily available in the house of various citizen. The chain of circumstantial evidence is broken. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then their appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.9358/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellants namely Gorelal @ Krishnapal and Shiv Kumar Patwar @ Guddu shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 1/10/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 20 Criminal Appeal No.290/2010 10.08.2015 Shri Himanshu Chourasiya, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.15298/2015, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Sections 392/397, 506 (II) of IPC and sentenced to 7 years' RI with fine of Rs.1000/- and one year's RI with fine of Rs.500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail, but he could not appear before the office of this Court on 19.12.2013 and thereafter the appellant went to Delhi to earn his livelihood, therefore he could not appear before the office of this Court nor he could not inform his counsel. To show his bonafide intention, the appellant is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- from his previous bail bond amount and he assures that he will appear regularly before the office of this Court. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.15298/15 is allowed subject to depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- from his previous bonds.

It is directed that if the appellant produces a receipt of deposit of Rs.10000/- from his previous bond before the trial 21 Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Mohd. Azhar @ Majhar @ Saddam shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 5/10/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time. It is also directed that recovery of compensation is also suspended.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 22 Criminal Appeal No.2661/2013 10.08.2015 Shri PS Gaharwar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.4694/2015, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence Default sentence Under Section 498-A of IPC RI for 3 years with RI for 2 months fine of Rs.1000/-

304-B of IPC       RI for 7 years
306 of IPC         RI for 7 years with RI for two months
                   fine of Rs.1000/-
4     of     Dowry RI for one year RI for two months
Prohibition Act    with      fine    of
                   Rs.1000/-

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. At present he is in custody since 27.9.2013. Champa Devi (PW-1) mother of the deceased has stated that as and when the deceased came to her house, she intimated about the dowry demand and harassment done by the appellant, however she has accepted that the deceased came to her house for three times, but in the cross examination she has accepted that in first two times she was sent to the house of the appellant without any problem, but in third time it is alleged that the deceased wanted to return after the festival of Holi, but the appellant wanted to take her before Holi. It is also alleged by Champa Devi that the appellant wrote a letter to the deceased claiming excuse. However no such letter has been filed by Champa Devi before the trial 23 Court. The parents of the deceased were not in a position to give motorcycle or cash of Rs.20,000/- and the appellant never demanded the same. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.4694/15 is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the entire fine amount before the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Jitendra Dwivedi @ Guddu shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 5/10/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 24 Criminal Appeal No.1154/2015 07.08.2015 Shri RS Patel, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Learned counsel for the State takes notice on behalf of the State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.11610/2015, a application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Sections 376, 506-II of IPC and sentenced to maximum period of seven years' RI with total fine of Rs.1500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He has already deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. The prosecutrix (PW-1) had alleged that she had lodged an FIR when she was pregnant. Looking to her conduct, she appears to be a consenting party. The documents relating to assessment of her age were suppressed by the police, and therefore Dr. DC Chourasiya (DW-1) was called in defence, who examined the prosecutrix radiologically and found her above 19 years of age. Hence the prosecutrix was certainly above 18 years of age at the time of incident. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution 25 of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.11610/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Bhangchandra shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 23/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 26 Criminal Appeal No.3226/2014 05.08.2015 Shri Manish Datt, Sr. Advocate with Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.23485/14, an application for taking documents on record.

Application is allowed. Documents be taken on record. Also heard on IA No.24430/2014, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence Default sentence Under Section 450 of IPC RI for 8 years with RI for 1 month fine of Rs.1000/-

395 of IPC RI for 8 years with RI for 1 month fine of Rs.1000/-

397 r/w 395 RI for 8 years 323 r/w 149 on 3 RI for one year counts Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is falsely implicated in the matter. He is a youth 24 years of age. There was no named FIR against the appellant, whereas the police has arrested the appellant on the next day of the incident. It is claimed that the appellant and other co-

accused persons have been identified in the test identification parade, however it would be apparent that the test identification parade has been arranged after one month of arrest of the appellant and therefore there was possibility that the appellant 27 would have been seen by the victims when they produced before the Magisterial Court for judicial remand etc. witness Ranjana (PW-4) has accepted that she saw the photographs of the accused persons in a newspaper when she was in the hospital. Kalpana Patel (PW-5) has refused to see such photographs, who is real sister of witness Ranjana, and therefore it cannot be said that one sister had seen the photograph of the appellant and second sister could not see the same. Under such circumstances, the identification of the appellant goes away. So far as the seizure of ornaments is concerned, a dacoity of huge ornaments is noted by the police according to complainant Ravendra PW-3), but from each of the appellant, one ornament is shown to be recovered. The ornaments were identified by Rashmi (PW-2) and document Ex.P-1 was prepared, but the identification memo Ex.P-1 was not referred to witness Rashmi (PW-2) in her examination before the trial Court. The seized ornaments were not produced before the witness Rashmi (PW-2), Ravendra (PW-3) as well as Sub Inspector Arun Singh Baghel (PW-7), who claimed to seize such ornaments from the appellant and other co-accused persons, and therefore those ornaments could not be shown to the witnesses so that they could identify these ornaments before the trial Court. Under such circumstances, the identification of the ornaments is not proved beyond doubt. However, the independent witnesses of seizure have also turned hostile. Sub Inspector Arun Kumar Bhaghel could not say that what was the basis so that the appellants could be arrested on next day of the incident. The entire prosecution story is doubtful. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of jail sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous.

Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application. He submits that the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and the offence alleged against the appellant for which he was convicted is duly proved.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.24430/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Krishna Kumar Shukla shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time. List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 29 Ansari 30 Criminal Appeal No.152/2015 05.08.2015 Shri VP Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.878/2015, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence Default sentence Under Section 450 of IPC RI for 8 years with RI for 1 month fine of Rs.1000/-

395 of IPC RI for 8 years with RI for 1 month fine of Rs.1000/-

397 r/w 395 RI for 8 years 323 r/w 149 on 3 RI for one year counts Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is falsely implicated in the matter. He is a youth 25 years of age. There was no named FIR against the appellant, whereas the police has arrested the appellant on the next day of the incident. It is claimed that the appellant and other co-

accused persons have been identified in the test identification parade, however it would be apparent that the test identification parade has been arranged after one month of arrest of the appellant and therefore there was possibility that the appellant would have been seen by the victims when they produced before the Magisterial Court for judicial remand etc. witness Ranjana (PW-4) has accepted that she saw the photographs of the accused persons in a newspaper when she was in the 31 hospital. Kalpana Patel (PW-5) has refused to see such photographs, who is real sister of witness Ranjana, and therefore it cannot be said that one sister had seen the photograph of the appellant and second sister could not see the same. Under such circumstances, the identification of the appellant goes away. So far as the seizure of ornaments is concerned, a dacoity of huge ornaments is noted by the police according to complainant Ravendra PW-3), but from each of the appellant, one ornament is shown to be recovered. The ornaments were identified by Rashmi (PW-2) and document Ex.P-1 was prepared, but the identification memo Ex.P-1 was not referred to witness Rashmi (PW-2) in her examination before the trial Court. The seized ornaments were not produced before the witness Rashmi (PW-2), Ravendra (PW-3) as well as Sub Inspector Arun Singh Baghel (PW-7), who claimed to seize such ornaments from the appellant and other co-accused persons, and therefore those ornaments could not be shown to the witnesses so that they could identify these ornaments before the trial Court. Under such circumstances, the identification of the ornaments is not proved beyond doubt. However, the independent witnesses of seizure have also turned hostile. Sub Inspector Arun Kumar Bhaghel could not say that what was the basis so that the appellants could be arrested on next day of the incident. The entire prosecution story is doubtful. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of jail sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application. He submits that the chain of circumstantial 32 evidence is complete and the offence alleged against the appellant for which he was convicted is duly proved.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.878/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Ramshankar Chaturvedi shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time. List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 33 34 Criminal Appeal No.3244/2014 05.08.2015 Shri HS Dubey, Sr. Advocate with Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Learned counsel for the State takes notice on behalf of the State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.24432/2014, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence Default sentence Under Section 450 of IPC RI for 8 years with RI for 1 month fine of Rs.1000/-

395 of IPC RI for 8 years with RI for 1 month fine of Rs.1000/-

397 r/w 395 RI for 8 years 323 r/w 149 on 3 RI for one year counts Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is falsely implicated in the matter. He is a youth 19 years of age. There was no named FIR against the appellant, whereas the police has arrested the appellant on the next day of the incident. It is claimed that the appellant and other co-

accused persons have been identified in the test identification parade, however it would be apparent that the test identification parade has been arranged after one month of arrest of the 35 appellant and therefore there was possibility that the appellant would have been seen by the victims when they produced before the Magisterial Court for judicial remand etc. witness Ranjana (PW-4) has accepted that she saw the photographs of the accused persons in a newspaper when she was in the hospital. Kalpana Patel (PW-5) has refused to see such photographs, who is real sister of witness Ranjana, and therefore it cannot be said that one sister had seen the photograph of the appellant and second sister could not see the same. Under such circumstances, the identification of the appellant goes away. So far as the seizure of ornaments is concerned, a dacoity of huge ornaments is noted by the police according to complainant Ravendra PW-3), but from each of the appellant, one ornament is shown to be recovered. The ornaments were identified by Rashmi (PW-2) and document Ex.P-1 was prepared, but the identification memo Ex.P-1 was not referred to witness Rashmi (PW-2) in her examination before the trial Court. The seized ornaments were not produced before the witness Rashmi (PW-2), Ravendra (PW-3) as well as Sub Inspector Arun Singh Baghel (PW-7), who claimed to seize such ornaments from the appellant and other co-accused persons, and therefore those ornaments could not be shown to the witnesses so that they could identify these ornaments before the trial Court. Under such circumstances, the identification of the ornaments is not proved beyond doubt. However, the independent witnesses of seizure have also turned hostile. Sub Inspector Arun Kumar Bhaghel could not say that what was the basis so that the appellants could be arrested on next day of the incident. The entire prosecution story is doubtful. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of jail 36 sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.24432/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Yogesh Dubey shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 37 Criminal Appeal No.4/2013 16.07.2015 Shri RB Gautam, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.13881/2015, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Sections 394, 397of IPC and Section 25(1)(i-B)(b) of the Arms Act and sentenced to maximum period of seven years' RI with total fine of Rs.1500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim Monu (PW-6) did not identify the appellant before the Court, though named FIR has been lodged against the appellant. It was alleged that one mobile was recovered from the appellant, however no identification of that mobile was done after its seizure. The identity number of that mobile was mentioned in the seizure memo, but it was not established that it was the same mobile robbed from the victim Monu. The chain of circumstantial evidence is broken. Prima facie no offence under Section 394 or 397 of IPC is made out against the appellant. He remained in the custody for three years, and therefore the sentence of offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act has already been executed. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.13881/15 is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Pappu Khan shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 14/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time. It is also directed that recovery of compensation is also suspended.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 39 Criminal Appeal No.1593/2015 15.07.2015 Shri Narayan Dubey, counsel for the appellant. Ms. Surbhi Nigam, Dy. Government Advocate for the respon- dent/ State.

Heard on IA No.13264/15, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant has been convicted under Section 8/20(B)

(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the police had received an intimation that the main accused Chandan Ben had some Ganja at his house and he was selling the same with the help of appellant. After making a raid, the Investigating Officer seized 3.600 kgs of Ganja from the house of Chandan Ben. The presence of the appellant is nowhere shown in any of the documents. It is not shown that any search of the appellant was taken at the place. There is no indication that the appellant was present at the time of such raid. Nothing has been seized from the appellant. There is nobody to say that the appellant was selling Ganja from that house. Under such circumstances, there is no evidence against the appellant that he had any Ganja at his exclusive possession or that he was selling Ganja. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail. It is also 40 submitted that the recovery of compensation may also be stayed.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.13264/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Lallu @ Jagdish Sonkar shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 16/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge 41 Ansari 42 Criminal Appeal No.193/2014 25.06.2015 Shri AK Chouhan, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.9029/2015, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N) of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act and sentenced to maximum period of ten years' RI with total fine of Rs.4000/-. Compensation of Rs.25,000/- was also granted to the prosecutrix.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in custody from the first date of arrest. The prosecutrix was shown to be 17 years of age, but the educational record which was submitted before the trial Court is not prepared by the person, who accepted the prosecutrix in the school for the first time. There is no basis to show the authentic entry relating to date of birth was informed to the school. The parents of the prosecutrix are illiterate. Looking to the physical appearance of the prosecutrix as depicted by the concerned Dr. Priti Bala (PW-5), it appears that the prosecutrix was above 18 years of age. The FIR was lodged with a delay of ten days. Looking to the conduct of the prosecutrix, she appears to be a consenting party. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

It is also submitted that the recovery of compensation may also be stayed.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.9029/15 is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Narottam Rajput shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 11/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time. It is also directed that recovery of compensation is also suspended.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 44 Criminal Appeal No.331/2015 25.06.2015 Shri Jafar Khan, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Learned counsel for the State takes notice on behalf of the State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.2138/2015, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC and sentenced to maximum period of five years' RI with total fine of Rs.3000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no allegation against the appellant relating to dowry demand. It was alleged by the parents of the deceased that the applicant had suspicion on the deceased that she was talking with an unknown person on her mobile phone provided by the appellant. The deceased had an opportunity to redress her problem. She could go to the house of her parents. Under these circumstances, the allegations made against the appellant do not fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of IPC, and therefore prima facie no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the appellant. The appellant remained in the custody for seven month during the trial and he is in custody for five months during the appeal, and therefore his sentence offence under Section 498-A of IPC may reduce to the period for which he 45 remained in the custody. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.2138/15 is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Sunil Malviya shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 14/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 46 Criminal Appeal No.983/2015 25.06.2015 Shri S.K.Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.6584/14, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced to seven years RI with fine of Rs.5000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. The prosecutrix is shown to be 24 years old girl. No external injury was found on her person though it is alleged that rape was committed at a place in the jungle. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has accepted that she reached to her house at about 8:00 AM in the morning, but the FIR was lodged with a delay of 12 hours. No reason has been shown about such delay. Under such circumstances, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.6584/15 is hereby allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Chandan @ Kapil Bhatt shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 11/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time. It is directed that the recovery of fine amount shall remained suspended. Case be listed for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari.

Criminal Appeal No.2521/2013 19.06.2015 Shri Amit Garg, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.10808/2015, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to seven years' RI with fine of Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is alleged against the appellant that he extorted the co-accused Manoj to fire upon the victim and thereafter he fired from a pistol causing fatal injuries to the victim. However, he was not the main culprit. He remained in custody for four years and four months. There is possibility that his sentence may be reduced to the period for which he has already undergone in the custody. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.10808/15 is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Yagyasen Kushwaha (Verma) @ Jagga shall remain 49 suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 11/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 50 Criminal Appeal No.2658/2014 17.06.2015 Smt. Archana Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.3963/2015, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Section 369 of IPC and sentenced to seven years' RI with fine of Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and she did not misuse the liberty granted to her. Though she is convicted under Section 369 of IPC, but there is no evidence that the kidnapped child had any ornament or any property, which could be taken by the appellant. Hence prima facie no offence under Section 369 of IPC is made out against the appellant. At the most offence under Section 363 of IPC may constitute. The appellant has already remained for three years and that would be the sufficient sentence for the offence under Section 363 of IPC. Under these circumstances, if execution of sentence is not suspended, then her appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.3963/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine amount before the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence 51 of appellant namely Anoopa Bai shall remain suspended and she be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her appearance before the Registry of this Court on 8/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 52 Criminal Appeal No.2581/2014 15.06.2015 Shri Arvind Soni, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.8035/2015, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Sections 363, 354 of IPC and Sections 7/8 and 11/12 of POCSO Act, and sentenced to 4 years' RI with fine of Rs.1000/-, 2 years' RI with fine of Rs.500/-, 3 years' RI with fine of Rs.500/- and 3 years' RI with fine of Rs.500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He remained for one year in the custody. Looking to the gravity of offence and age of the appellant, his sentence may be reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody except of offence under Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act. Actually the definition of sexual assault is given under Section 7 of that Act. According to that definition, the appellant did not commit the offence of sexual assault and there is possibility of success of appeal for offence under Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act in which a minimum sentence is prescribed. The appellant is a youth of 25 years of age and if he is not enlarged on bail, then his future will be spoiled. Under these circumstances, if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.8035/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the entire fine amount before the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Harcharan Dhemmar shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 1/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 54 Criminal Appeal No.3438/2014 15.05.2015 Shri BJ Chourasiya, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.23969/2014, a application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to five years' of RI with fine of Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. It is alleged against the appellant that he assaulted the victim Ramswaroop by a sharp cutting weapon causing disfiguration to him. However, there is no allegation that he assaulted second time to the victim. The victim is 58 years old, and therefore disfiguration has no much meaning for him. There are fair chances that his sentence may be reduced for which he remained in the custody. If execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.23969/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Lakhan shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 29/6/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 56 Criminal Appeal No.3577/2014 13.03.2015 Shri Hemant Sen, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Akhilendra Singh, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.4621/14, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Section 376-D of IPC and sentenced to 20 years RI with fine of Rs.10000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix was a mentally retarded child. The prosecutrix (PW-

6) was examined with help of one expert interpreter and she had accepted in para 7 of her cross examination that the appellant was shown to her at the police station, and therefore the identification proceeding of the child looses its evidentiary value. Mohd. Anwar (PW-2)-father of the prosecutrix and Smt. Sakina (PW-3)-mother of the prosecutrix have turned hostile. The FIR was lodged with delay of 9-10 days. It would be apparent that the appellant is convicted on the basis of suspicion only. There was no cognate evidence against him. A heavy fine has been imposed upon the appellant. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail. Also recovery of fine be suspended.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.4621/15 is hereby allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Ajay Nai shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 1/5/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time. It is directed that the recovery of fine amount shall remained suspended.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari.

Criminal Appeal No.3457/2014 05.03.2015 Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Akhilendra Singh, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Learned counsel for the State takes notice on behalf of the State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.23651/14, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Section 376-D of IPC and sentenced to 20 years RI with fine of Rs.10000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix was a mentally retarded child. The prosecutrix (PW-

6) was examined with help of one expert interpreter and she had accepted in para 7 of her cross examination that the appellant was shown to her at the police station, and therefore the identification proceeding of the child looses its evidentiary value. Mohd. Anwar (PW-2)-father of the prosecutrix and Smt. Sakina (PW-3)-mother of the prosecutrix have turned hostile. The FIR was lodged with delay of 9-10 days. It would be apparent that the appellant is convicted on the basis of suspicion only. There was no cognate evidence against him. A heavy fine has been imposed upon the appellant. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present 59 appellant be released on bail. Also recovery of fine be suspended.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.23651/14 is hereby allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Motu @ Bhanu Pratap Gond shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 1/5/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time. It is directed that the recovery of fine amount shall remained suspended.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari.

Ansari 61 Criminal Appeal No.3345/2014 16.02.2015 Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.24060/14, an application for urgent hearing.

Application is allowed.

Also heard on admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Learned counsel for the State takes notice on behalf of the State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.22925/14, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant and IA No.22929/14, an application under Section 424 of Cr.P. The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced to ten years RI with fine of Rs.4000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a youth of 22 years of age, who was on bail during the trial. The prosecutrix (PW0-5) has accepted that she was a woman of 22 years of age and she had relations with the appellant since long. She permitted for cohabitation to the appellant on his assurance of marriage. Under such circumstances, the prosecutrix was a consenting party. No alleged offence is made out against the appellant. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, both the IAs are allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits a fine amount of Rs.10,000/- before the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Brajesh Burman shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 21/4/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time. It is directed that the recovery of remaining fine amount shall remained suspended.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 63 Criminal Appeal No.1048/2013 13.02.2015 Shri Hemant Sen, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.2118/15, a application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.2 Vijay Kumar Sen @ Lalli.

The appellant No.2 is convicted of offence punishable under Section 8/20(b)(II)(B) of NDPS Act and sentenced to five years' RI with fine of Rs.1000/-

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial. He has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. The co-appellant Rakesh Pandy has already been released on bail vide order dated 5.7.2013 and the case of the present appellant No.2 is similar to co-appellant Rakesh Pandey. The appellant remained in the custody for two years and three months and there is possibility that his sentence may be reduced to the period for which he has already undergone in the custody. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.2118/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Vijay Kumar Sen @ Lalli shall remain 64 suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 28/4/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 65 Criminal Appeal No.3113/2014 12.02.2015 Shri PK Mishra, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sameer Chile, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.21470/14, a application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Sections 363 and 376(1) of IPC and sentenced to maximum period of ten years RI with total fine of Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that according to the version of the prosecutrix (PW-2), she remained with the appellant for a lengthy period at various places. Her age was shown to be 17 years and 7 months according to her date of birth shown by the educational record. In the ossification test, she was found to be 17-18 years of age. There is no document shown by the prosecution that her date of birth was recorded at the school with help of any documentary basis. The prosecutrix was above 18 years of age and she was a consenting party. No alleged offence is made out against the appellant. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.21470/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Pradeep Kumar shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 28/4/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 67 Criminal Appeal No.3165/2014 12.02.2015 Shri Manoj Patel, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sameer Chile, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.22201/14, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced to two years' RI with fine of Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a youth of 21 years of age, who is in custody since 11.4.2013 in the present case and if the application is not allowed, then his appeal may turn infructuous in the month of April, 2015. There are fair chances that his sentence may be reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.22201/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Rajesh Meena shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their 68 appearance before the Registry of this Court on 28/4/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 69 Criminal Appeal No.3299/2014 12.02.2015 Shri Anoop Saxena, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sameer Chile, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.22621/14, a application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 506 of IPC and sentenced to maximum period of ten years RI with total fine of Rs.6000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial. The prosecutrix had lodged an FIR with delay that she was carrying with fetus of 8 ½ months. In the ossification test, her age was found to be 17-18 years of age. She has admitted in the cross examination that her mother expired 16- 17 years prior to the incident and she has a younger brother who is 3-4 years younger to the prosecutrix, and therefore according to her own admission, her age at the time of alleged incident was found above 18 years of age. Also in the report given by the FSL Sagar Ex.P-20 it was found that the appellant was not the biological father of the child born to the prosecutrix and hence the allegation made by the prosecutrix appears to be incorrect. It appears that the guilt of anyone else is shifted upon the appellant. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.22621/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Neetesh shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 23/4/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 71 Criminal Appeal No.25/2013 06.02.2015 Shri Aditya Adhikari, Sr. Advocate with Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.1140/15, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.1 whereas his earlier application was dismissed being withdrawn.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to maximum period of ten years RI with total fine of Rs.400/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a youth of 25 years of age, who was on bail during the trial and he has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. The deceased was the wife of the appellant, who died after 4-5 years of her marriage. She died on 7.10.2008 and her parents kept silence for more than a month and they made omnibus allegations relating to dowry demand and harassment. All the witnesses have stated that there was demand of the appellant No.1 to get a motorcycle from the parents of the deceased. However, Shivnarayan (PW-5) father of the deceased has stated that he knew about the demand and the deceased was detained in his house for 2-3 times during her lifetime. However, Rekha (PW-1) sister of the deceased, Meera Bai (PW-15) mother of the deceased did not corroborate the story of the detention of the deceased to the house of her parents. Various witnesses have stated that the deceased was complaining about the harassment and dowry demand from time to time, but Rekha (PW-1) sister of the deceased has clearly stated that she 72 knew for the first time when she went to meet the deceased 4-5 days before her death. If there was continuous harassment from the side of appellant No.1 to the deceased, then Rekha would have knowledge about that fact. It appears that after examination of witness Rekha before the Court, the remaining relatives of the deceased have turned their statements and they alleged about the concerned demand for a longer period. However, Shivnarayan (PW-5) father of the deceased and Pushpa (PW-4) have accepted that in first three years of marriage of the deceased, there was no harassment towards her, hence it was not possible for the appellant No.1 to start such a demand in 4 th year of her marriage. The deceased was pregnant having pregnancy of seven months at the time of her death, and it was not possible for the appellant No.1 to harass her for dowry demand so that she could commit suicide. Under these circumstances, the allegations made against the appellant No.1 are incorrect. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant No.1 be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.1140/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant No.1 namely Jaswant shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their 73 appearance before the Registry of this Court on 122/4/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 74 Ansari 75 Criminal Appeal No.2934/2014 29.01.2015 Shri Manoj Patel, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sameer Chile, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.20345/14, a application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced to five years' RI with fine of Rs.500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant remained in custody since 15.4.2013. There was no named FIR against the appellant. The main victim Nitin (PW-2), who identified the appellant as well as various articles seized from the appellant has accepted in para 8 and 9 of his evidence that the appellant was shown to him by the police before arrangement of the test identification parade. Similarly, all the seized articles were shown to him before arrangement of their identification. Under such circumstances, the evidence of test identification parade of the appellant as well as articles goes away. There is no cognate circumstantial evidence against the appellant to implicate him with the alleged crime. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.20345/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Rajesh Meena shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 16/4/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 77 Ansari 78 Criminal Appeal No.2810/2014 16.01.2015 Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.22464/15, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Sections 376 and 450 of IPC and sentenced to maximum period of ten years' of RI with total fine of Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial. He has already deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. It is alleged against the appellant that he committed upon the prosecutrix (PW-6), a married woman aged 32 years. According to the prosecution story, Rahul (PW-9), child of the prosecutrix was sleeping nearby the prosecutrix. However, Rahul in his case dairy statement did not say that he was sleeping at the time of incident and if he was not sleeping, then the appellant could not commit any crime in his presence. If he was sleeping, then it is not stated by the prosecutrix that she shouted in the beginning. She claims that Rahul woke up after completion of the crime. Such statement and contradictions between the statement of Rahul and his case diary statement, it appears that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. She did not make any hue and cry at the time of the incident and when Rahul woke up and other witnesses came to the spot, a false case has been lodged by the prosecutrix against the appellant otherwise the prosecutrix was a consenting party. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if 79 execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.22464/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Sevak Yadav shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 17/3/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 80 Ansari 81 Criminal Appeal No.1975/2013 13.01.2015 Ms Sarita Acharya, Advocate for the appellant. Sheri Sameer Chile, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.422/15, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Sections 376(1), 366-A, 363 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act and sentenced to maximum period of ten years' of RI with total fine of Rs.12000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial. The age of the prosecutrix was above 16 years of age. The FIR was lodged with a delay of six hours. No external or internal injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix though it is alleged that a rape was committed upon her in a open field. Looking to the entire evidence given by the prosecutrix (PW-7), it appears that her version appears to be unnatural. Therefore, either she was a consenting party or she has falsely implicated the applicant in the matter. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.422/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Rajesh shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 17/3/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 83 Criminal Appeal No.2269/2012 12.01.2015 Sheri Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Sheri Sameer Chile, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.21897/14, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Sections 394, 376(2)(g), 506(II) of IPC and sentenced to maximum period of ten years' of RI with total fine of Rs.14000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not previous convict. He was on bail during the trial. The prosecutrix had alleged against three unknown persons that they committed gang rape upon her. The prosecutrix (PW-1) and eye- witness Manoj (PW-3) have admitted in their cross examination that the appellant was shown to them at Police Station Bharveli District Balaghat and thereafter the test identification parade was arranged. Under such circumstances, the test identification parade proceeding has no evidentiary value. There are fair chances that the appellant may be acquitted. If execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.21897/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Ganesh shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10/3/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Also heard on IA No.30738/14, an application for urgent hearing.

Since the main application has already been disposed off, therefore application for urgent hearing has turned infructious. Consequently, IA No.30738/14 is hereby dismissed being infructuous.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 85 Criminal Appeal No.1639/2012 08.01.2015 Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, Advocate for the appellants No.2 and 3.

Sheri Sameer Chile, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.21966/14 and IA No. 24203/14, applications for urgent hearing of IA No.9151/2014.

Applications are allowed.

Heard on IA No.9151/2014, a application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants No.2 and 3.

The appellants No.2 and 3 are convicted of offence punishable under Sections 307/34, 294 and 506(II) of IPC and sentenced to maximum period of seven years' of RI with total fine of Rs.2600/-.

Learned counsel for the appellants No.2 and 3 submits that the appellants No.2 and 3 remained in the custody for approximately three years. It is alleged against the appellants No.2 and 3 that they assaulted the victim Preetam on his head by axes. However, no fracture was caused on the head of the victim. Doctor who examined the victim one day at Nagpur has opined that the injuries were of fatal nature, but it appears that the appellants No.2 and 3 assaulted the victim on his head without any force, and therefore no fracture was caused. The doctor who recorded the MLC of the victim did not fine any symptom of brain hemorrhage. Hence the injury of the victim on his head was neither fatal nor grave. There is a possibility that the conviction of the appellants No.2 and 3 may be reduced 86 to the offence under Section 324/34 of IPC. If execution of sentence is not suspended, then their appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants No.2 and 3 be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.9151/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellants No.2 and 3 namely Arvind and Aniruddha shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) each with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 9/3/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 87 Criminal Appeal No.3349/2014 17.12.2014 None for the parties.

Advocates are abstaining from work.

One Atul Patel son of appellant No.9 is present in person. The appeal is admitted for final hearing. Copy of memo of appeal be provided in AG office so that notice of the appeal may be served to the State.

Considered IA No.22955/14, an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.

Each of the appellant has been convicted of offence under Sections 148, 452, 427 and 325/149 of IPC and sentenced for maximum period of four years' RI with total fine of Rs.;2500/-.

After perusal of the record of the trial Court it appears that the appellants are sentenced for four years' RI relating to offence under Section 325/149 and three years' RI relating to offence under Section 452 of IPC. It appears that the allegations of offence under Section 325 of IPC were made upon the appellants that someone out of them had assaulted victim Ganga on his head by a rod, and therefore it is possible that no offence under Section 452 of IPC may constitute. At the most offence under Section 451 of IPC may constitute, and therefore sentence for that offence may be reduced. Similarly, though Dr. Rajesh Singhai (PW-13) has stated that injury caused to Ganga was grave in nature. However, in the X-ray, no fracture was found. The opinion given by Dr. Rajesh Singhai on the basis of Scan report appears not produced before the trial Court. Also in the FIR it was alleged that the appellant Manoj assaulted the victim Ganga on her head, whereas in statement of victim Ganga she had alleged against one Nandu. It is possible that victim could 88 not see as to who assaulted on her head. Since the injury was not proved to be grave, there is possibility that the appellants may be convicted only for offence under Section 323 of IPC and their sentence may be reduced. Present appeal cannot be disposed off within next six months. Under such circumstances, it is good case in which the execution of jail sentence may be suspended and present appellants may be released on bail.

Consequently, IA No.22955/14 is hereby allowed. It is directed that if the appellants deposit the fine amount before the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of present appellants shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each with one surety bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 9/2/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 89 Criminal Appeal No.3390/2013 16.12.2014 Smt. Mehrunnisha Khan, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Brahmdatt Singh, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.19133/2014, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Sections 8(B)/20(B)(2)(b) of NDPS Act and sentenced to four years' RI with fine of Rs.10,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. He remained in the custody for more than 14 months. It is alleged that he had 1.800 kg Ganja with him. The maximum sentence for keeping one kg Ganja is six months' RI, and therefore there is possibility that his sentence may be reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.19133/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Narvadi alias Sanno shall remain suspended 90 and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19/2/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 91 Criminal Appeal No.997/2014 18.11.2014 Shri Pranay Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.6715/2014, a application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Sections 392 of IPC and Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and sentenced to maximum period of seven years' of RI with fine of Rs.6000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has no criminal past alleged against him. He is a youth of 21 years of age. He was on bail during the trial from time to time. However, at present he remained in the custody for more than 20 months. His sentence imposed of offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act is over. So far as the offence under Section 392 of IPC is concerned, there is no named FIR against the appellant. The test identification parade was arranged after three weeks of his arrest. According to the remand application dated 16.5.2011, it appears that he was produced before the concerned magistrate court with open face, and therefore there was an opportunity to see the appellant by the various witnesses in the concerned Court. No robbed property has been recovered from the appellant. Only sum of Rs.6,000/- is seized from the appellant, to show that he was one of the robbers. No test identification of the cash can be done. One firearm and motorcycle have also been recovered from the appellant, but there was no connection with the motorcycle with the alleged 92 offence. No witnesses have stated that the robbers came on that vehicle. For keeping firearm he has already undergone the sentence directed by the trial Court. There are fair chances that his sentence may be reduced for which he remained in the custody. If execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.6715/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Jagdish Singh shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 15/12/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 93 Criminal Appeal No.3139/2013 14.11.2014 Shri Aseem Dixit, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.21831/2014, a application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and temporary grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Section 377 of IPC and sentenced to seven years' of RI with fine of Rs.5000/-.

This application has been moved on the ground that the father of the appellant has expired on 9.11.2014 and the appellant has to attend the various ceremonies relating to death of his father. In view of this fact, temporary bail for 15 days can be granted to the appellant.

Consequently, IA No.21831/14 is allowed. It is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Kailash Sharma shall remain suspended and he be released on temporary bail for 15 days on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The appellant shall surrender immediately on 1.12.2014.

The trial Court is directed to send an information that the appellant has surrendered before the trial Court on the given date.

Case be listed for further orders on 10.12.2014. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge 94 Ansari 95 Criminal Appeal No.2017/2014 16.10.2014 Shri U.S.Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.14702/2014, a application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC and sentenced to five years' of RI with fine of Rs.200/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He has already suffered the confinment of more than four years. If the evidence advanced by the prosecution is considered, then nothing could be robbed from the complainant, and therefore no offence under Section 394 of IPC is made out against the appellant. At the most offence under Section 395 read with Section 511 of IPC may constitute. There are fair chances that his sentence may be reduced for which he remained in the custody. If execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.14702/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Sheebu @ Jahid Musalman shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 18/12/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 97 Criminal Appeal No.593/2014 09.10.2014 Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.19302/2014, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Sections 342, 506(II), 376 of IPC and sentenced to maximum period of ten years of RI with total fine of Rs.5000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix was found to be above 16 years of age at the time of incident. The doctor who examined the prosecutrix had found that external injury caused to the prosecutrix was 3-4 days old, whereas no internal injury was found to the prosecutrix. She was a habitual to the intercourse. The place of incident was the place in the dense locality and no reason has been shown by the prosecutrix as to why she did not make any hue and cry. There is possibility that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances 98 of the case, IA No.19302/14 is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Pintu Verma shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/11/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 99 Criminal Appeal No.923/2012 19.09.2014 Ms Mamta Dubey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.17670/2014, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC and sentenced to maximum period of five years' RI with total fine of Rs.1500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial. The deceased was the wife of the appellant, who died after seven years of her marriage, and therefore no presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act may apply in the case. The allegations made against the appellant do not fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of IPC, and therefore prima facie no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the appellant. The appellant remained in the custody for four years, and therefore sentence of offence under Section 498-A of IPC has already been executed. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

100

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.17670/14 is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Kharag Singh shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19/11/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 101 Criminal Appeal No.3263/2013 19.09.2014 Shri Manish Datt, Sr. Advocate with Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the appellant No.1.

Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.17753/2014, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.1.

The appellant No.1 is convicted of offence punishable under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act and sentenced to three years' RI with fine of Rs.25,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. It is alleged against the present appellant and the co- accused persons that they had 2 kg Ganja. The present appellant No.1 remained in the custody for more than one year and there is possibility that his sentence may be reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant No.1 be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.17753/14 is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

102

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by the appellant No.1, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant No.1 namely Raju @ Rajkumar shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19/11/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 103 Criminal Appeal No.1717/2014 26.08.2014 Shri L.N.Sakle, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.12341/2014, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 326/34 of IPC and sentenced to five years' RI with fine of Rs.5000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he is ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. Actually the grave injury was caused by the co-accused Komal by a sharp cutting weapon. The witnesses have alleged that at the time when the co-accused Komal was assaulting the victim, the present appellant held the victim. However, if the FIR Ex.P-8 is perused, then it is not mentioned by the complainant that the appellant held the victim when the co-accused was assaulting by a knife and improvement has been done by the witnesses to implicate the appellant, because the co-accused had expired. The appellant was not aware that the co-accused would assault the victim in such a manner. No common intention of the appellant can be presumed with the co-accused. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

104

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.12341/14 is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Rajendra Ahirwar @ Kallu Ahirwar shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10/12/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 105 Criminal Appeal No.1752/2014 26.08.2014 Shri Umakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Shri P.N.Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.12494/2014, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and sentenced to maximum period of five years' RI with total fine of Rs.5000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the parents of the deceased have accepted that the marriage of the deceased took place 9-10 years back before the incident, and therefore no presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is applicable. According to the dying declaration Ex.P-5, the deceased committed suicide because the appellant was abusing her by blaming her character. Such allegation does not fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of IPC and prima facie no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the appellant. The appellant remained in the custody for 112 days during the trial and at present he is in custody for last two months. If he is found guilty under Section 498-A of IPC, then there is possibility of reduction of his sentence. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

106

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.12494/14 is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Vinod Kol shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 9/12/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 107 Criminal Appeal No.58/2014 22.08.2014 Shri Sandesh Dixit, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.14200/2014, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 450 of IPC and sentenced to five years' RI with fine of Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and at present he is in custody since 3.1.2014. looking to the opinion given by Dr.A.K.Jain (PW-2) in the cross examination, the injuries caused to the victim were simple in nature, therefore at the most offence under sections 324 and 452 of IPC would be constituted. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.14200/14 is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant 108 namely Sher Singh @ Shera shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 11/11/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 109 Criminal Appeal No.37/2014 22.08.2014 Shri Rahul Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.13764/2014, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and Section 506 (II) of IPC and sentenced to the maximum period of three years' RI with fine of Rs.500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in custody for last one year. He was on bail during the trial and the trial Court vide order dated 11.12.2013 has suspended the execution of jail sentence of the appellant for a limited period. However, he could not furnish the bail, and therefore he remained in the custody. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.13764/14 is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant 110 namely Dhuklal shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 12/11/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 111 Criminal Appeal No.1836/2014 19.08.2014 Shri Surendra Rajak, Advocate for the appellant. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.13096/2014, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentenced with 10 years RI with fine of Rs.500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix was shown to be above 17 years of aged at the time of incident. The trial Court has accepted her version that she went herself for Mumbai, and therefore the appellant was not convicted for the offence under Section 363 or 366 of IPC. The date of birth as shown by the father of the prosecutrix is under dispute. He could not show that when it was recorded in the school and what was the document shown by him in support. No ossification test has been performed by the prosecution to assess the actual age of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has clearly stated before the trial Court that she wants to reside with the appellant and she has a child from the appellant. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

112

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.13096/14 is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Mohd. Salman @ Sallu shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 14/10/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 113 Criminal Appeal No.1624/2013 19.08.2014 Smt. Indu Pandey, Advocate for the appellant. Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.13555/2014, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant whereas his earlier application was dismissed being withdrawn.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 392/34 and 397 of IPC and sentenced with maximum period of seven years of RI with total fine of Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no named FIR against the appellant. It was alleged that he was identified by the witnesses Vinod (PW-2) and Krishna Bai (PW-

1), however Krishna Bai did not identify the appellant in the trial Court. Contrary to the identification parade memo she identified the co-accused Vijay in the Court. The victim Vinod (PW-2) has accepted in para 11 of his statement that the appellant was shown to him at the police station and thereafter test identification parade was arranged at the District Jail, Hoshangabad. Under such circumstances, there is no evidentiary value of the test identification proceeding. No robbed property has been recovered from the appellant. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

114

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.13555/14 is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Amit Thakur shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 18/11/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 115 Criminal Appeal No.925/2014 06.05.2014 Shri Arun Vishwakarma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.8562/2014, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376(1) and 506(2) of IPC and sentenced with maximum period of ten years of RI with total fine of Rs.6000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a youth of 26 years of age, who was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. The prosecutrix has accepted that at the time of incident the appellant was in a drunken condition and he was pushed by sister-in-law of the prosecutrix, and therefore the appellant fell on the earth. Under such circumstances, it was not possible for the appellant to commit rape without consent of the prosecutrix. Therefore, either the appellant is falsely implicated in the matter or the prosecutrix was a consenting party. No alleged offence is made out against the appellant. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

116

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.8562/14 is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Mukesh @ Mukri shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/7/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 117 Criminal Appeal No.695/2014 05.05.2014 Shri Imtiaz Husain, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA NO.8405/14, an application for amendment. Application is allowed. The proposed amendment be carried out within one week.

Also heard on IA No.8403/14, an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellants No.1 and 2.

The appellants No.1 and 2 are convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34, 304-B/34 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and sentenced with maximum period of ten years' RI with total fine of Rs. 3,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them. The deceased was the wife of the appellant No.1 Santosh and sister-in-law of the appellant No.2 Sunil, who died due to burn injuries. After her death, the parents and relatives have made omnibus allegations against the appellants about the dowry demand. However, mother of the deceased had admitted that there was exchange of marriage in the family that sister of the appellant Santosh was married to the brother of the deceased, and therefore if there was any demand of dowry from the side of the appellants, then certainly sister of the appellants would have tortured by the parents of the deceased, whereas she is living peacefully. Looking to the entire evidence of various witnesses, it appears that there was 118 allegation against the accused Laxmi, who tried to commit rape upon the deceased, and therefore she committed suicide. Prima facie no offence under Section 304-B of IPC is made out against the appellants No.1 and 2. The remaining offences are not so grave. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, the aforesaid application is hereby allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellants No.1 and 2 namely Santosh and Sunil shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) each with one surety bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 15/7/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 119 Criminal Appeal No.229/2012 30.04.2014 Shri Prakash Upadhyay, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.5226/2014, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.1 Shiv Kumar Saket whereas his earlier applications were dismissed being withdrawn.

The appellant No.1 is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced with ten years' of RI with fine of Rs.5000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was alleged against the present appellant that he assaulted the victim for once by a knife. There is no allegation against the present appellant Shiv Kumar Saket that he assaulted for the second time. At present he remained in the custody for more than 3 ½ years and there are fair chances that his sentence may be reduced for which he remained in the custody. If execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.5226/2 maximum 014 is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

120

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by the appellant No.1 then the execution of jail sentence of appellant No.1 namely Shivkumar Saket shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 25/6/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 121 Criminal Appeal No.2679/2012 30.04.2014 Shri RPS Thakur, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.3838/2014, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant whereas his earlier application was dismissed being withdrawn.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced with ten years' of RI with fine of Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. The prosecutrix had lodged an FIR about the rape against the appellant, however she expired before her examination, and therefore there is no substance evidence produced by the prosecution against the appellant. The witnesses Pushpa (PW-4), Sunila (PW-5), Santosh (PW-6), Channulal (PW-7) etc. have stated in omnibus manner on the basis of hearsay evidence and their evidence is not admissible because that was the hearsay evidence. Dr. Rajnish Jain (PW-9) has admitted that at the time of medico legal examination of the prosecutrix, the prosecutrix admitted before her that she never met with the appellant in last one month, and therefore no intercourse was done in last one month of the medico legal examination of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was a major girl, who did not lodge any FIR about the previous incident. She was a drugs addict and therefore she was examined by the 122 doctor. If the appellant did intercourse with the prosecutrix one month prior to her medical legal examination, then looking to the conduct of the prosecutrix that she did not lodge any FIR, she was a consenting party and in last one month according to her nothing was done with her. Under such circumstances, no offence under Section 376 of IPC is made out against the appellant. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.3838/2014 is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Vishwanath @ Vissu Mallah shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 30/6/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge 123 Ansari 124 Criminal Appeal No.845/2012 29.04.2014 Ms Kamlesh Tamrakar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.7788/12, an application for suspension of jail sentence and suspension of fine amount.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced for 5 years' RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him. He has already remained in the jail for two years, whereas it is a case of chain snatching. There are fair chances that his sentence may be reduced for which he remained in the custody. If he is not released on bail, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, the aforesaid application is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Girru @ Girish Verma shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount subject to depositing the fine amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court 125 for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 1/7/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 126 Criminal Appeal No.1136/2011 25.04.2014 Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.6546/14 and IA NO.6544/14, applications for suspension of jail sentence and suspension of fine amount.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 20-B(II)(C) of NDPS Act and sentenced for 10 years' RI with fine of Rs. 1.00,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that one quintal Ganja was found in a vehicle driven by co-accused Ambrish Chandra Mishra. At the time of seizure the applicant was not found in the vehicle. After completion of seizure etc. the police recorded the statement of co-accused Ambrish Chandra Mishra that Ganja was booked by one Mamu Patel along with one Chhedi Patel. On the basis of that information, the appellant was called from the jail and arrested. It is nowhere established that the appellant was Mamu Patel or Chhedi Patel. No such document is recovered that he booked the taxi from the particular company or he was travelling in the vehicle soon before the siezure. Under such circumstances, there is no valid evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. The main accused Ambrish Chandra Mishra has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 24.2.2012 in Cr.A.No.765/2011 and the case of the present appellant is inferior to him. The appellant is in custody since 1.7.2008 and therefore if he is not released on bail, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Under such 127 circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, the aforesaid application is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Rajendra Patel @ Ramjanam shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount and 50% of the fine amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19/6/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time. Consequently, the remaining fine amount shall remain stayed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 128 Criminal Appeal No.305/2011 09.04.2014 Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.5823/2014, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307/149 (two counts) and 148 of IPC and sentenced with maximum period of five years of RI with total fine of Rs.1200/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. According to Dr.Sampoornand Dubey (PW-13) the injuries caused to the victim Sachin were simple in nature, whereas the trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 307/149 of IPC for the victim Sachin. There is possibility that the conviction of the appellant for the victim Sachin may be reduced to Section 324 of IPC. Similarly, victim Basant sustained two injuries and out of them the injury No.2 was found simple in nature by Dr.Sampoornand Dubey (PW-

13). For injury No.1 the patient was referred to the Surgical Specialist and Dr. Rajesh Pandey (PW-5) in his query report has submitted that the injury No.1 of victim Basant was grave and injury No.2 was fatal, whereas no bed head ticket is shown and it was not established that the injury No.1 was grave under Section 320 of IPC. Under such circumstances, there is possibility that the conviction of the appellant for the victim 129 Basant may also be reduced to Section 324 of IPC. The appellant remained in the custody since 25.10.2010. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.5823/ 2014 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Sonu alias Dilip shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 5/5/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 130 Criminal Appeal No.2973/2013 04.04.2014 Shri A.K.Jain, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.6077/14, which is an application for suspension of jail sentence whereas previous application of the appellants was dismissed being withdrawn.

The appellants are convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307 or 307/34 and 325 of IPC and sentenced with maximum period of seven years' RI with fine of Rs. 4,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are reputed citizen of the locality. They were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them. The charges of offence under Sections 307 and 325 of IPC were framed for the victim Akhilesh, who appeared before the Court on 4.3.2014 and applied for compromise and his compromise application was accepted, and therefore the appellants are acquitted from the charge of Section 325 of IPC. In the light of the compromise, there is possibility that sentence for the offence under Section 307 of IPC may be reduced to the period for which they remained in the custody, whereas they remained for six months. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

131

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, the aforesaid application is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellants namely Sanju and Munnilal shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) each with one surety bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 7/5/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 132 Criminal Appeal No.576/2014 21.03.2014 Shri Harshit Patel, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.3936/2014, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and Section 4 of POSCO Act and sentenced with maximum period of seven years of RI with total fine of Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He is ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. The prosecutrix is shown to be 16 ½ years old in her medico legal examination. No ossification test was done. The date of birth of the prosecutrix was proved by the Teacher, who admitted the prosecutrix in class 9 to 10, and therefore there is no basis shown by the prosecution by which the date of birth of the prosecutrix was recorded. Looking to her physical appearance and her consent, she appears to be a consenting party and above 18 years of age. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

133

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.3936/ 2014 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Sandeep Kachhi shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 21/4/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 134 Criminal Appeal No.3345/2013 21.02.2014 Shri B.P.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.28760/2013, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 456, 476, 506 (Part-II) of IPC and Section 4 of POSCO Act and sentenced with maximum period of ten years of RI with total fine of Rs.12000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the doctor (PW-14) has stated that by ossification test the age of the prosecutrix was found to be above 18 years of age. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has admitted in the cross examination that for urination she was not required to go on the road, but she went to the road for that purpose. It would be apparent that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. No alleged offence is made out against the appellant. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.28760/ 2013 is allowed.

135

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Komal Singh shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 25/3/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 136 Criminal Appeal No.2282/2009 27.01.2014 Shri Ratan Bharat Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.1307/2014, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC and sentenced with maximum period of ten years of RI with total fine of Rs.4000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality. He was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. The prosecutrix was shown to be above 17 years of age and in the ossification test she was also found above 17 years of age. According to the statements of witnesses, she was above 18 years of age. According to her own statement, she resided in a separate hut at Mathura. It is alleged against the appellant that he kidnapped the prosecutrix, however she was resided in a separate hut, then there is no question of any kidnapping or abduction. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

137

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.1307/ 2014 is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Gya @ Gyaprasad shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/3/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 138 Criminal Appeal No.630/2013 27.01.2014 Shri Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.17003/2013, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 450 and 376(1) of IPC and sentenced with maximum period of seven years of RI with total fine of Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality. He was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. The prosecutrix is shown to be married woman of 26 years of age. No external or internal injury was found on her person. According to the prosecution story, the appellant broken the door of the house of the prosecutrix and thereafter he entered into the house. However, in the memo of spot memo the police did not find any broken door at the spot. The prosecutrix could make hue and cry at the time of incident, because there is no allegation against the appellant that he had any weapon at the time of incident. Under such circumstances, either the appellant is falsely implicated in the matter or the prosecutrix was a consenting party. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

139

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.17003/ 2013 is allowed subject to depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Gutroo @ Susheel shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/3/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 140 Criminal Appeal No.279/2013 16.01.2014 Shri A.D.Mishra, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.2905/2013, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced with seven years' RI with fine of Rs.500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality. He was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. The FIR was lodged with a delay of 10 hours, whereas the husband of the prosecutrix reached to his house in the night itself. The various witnesses have admitted that the appellant was a regular visitor to the house of the prosecutrix when her husband was not present. It is apparent that there was allegation on the appellant that he had knocked down the wall in the house of the prosecutrix's husband, and therefore a false case of rape has been lodged against the appellant. The medical evidence is negative. It was not proved beyond doubt that in the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix, semen particles of the appellant was found. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

141

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.2905/ 2013 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Shyamlal shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/3/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 142 Criminal Appeal No.3040/2013 15.01.2014 Shri Dhananjay Asati, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.26005/2013, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced with one year's RI Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the seizure of mobile was not proved against the present appellant. Such type of mobiles are available with so many persons, and therefore by purchase of mobile, no offence under Section 411 of IPC is made out against the appellant. However, no identification number of the mobile was given for its identification. The company issues so many so many mobiles of the same identification and in absence of the specific identification mark, it could not be proved that the seized mobile was the same, which was robbed. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

143

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.26005/ 2013 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Suresh Luniya shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/3/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge 144 Criminal Appeal No.1741/2013 15.01.2014 Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.25813/2013, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

145

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.26005/ 2013 is allowed.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 146 Ansari 147 Criminal Appeal No.211/2012 10.01.2014 Shri Satish Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellant No.3. Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.25089/2013, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.3.

The appellant No.3 is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC and sentenced with maximum period of ten years' RI with fine amount Rs.100/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.3 submits that the appellant No.3 is a reputed citizen of the locality, who was on bail during the trial. The parents of the deceased appeared on 7.10.2010 before the Executive Magistrate when Panchayatnama-lash was prepared, but they did not allege anything against the appellant No.3 at that time. After keeping silence for three weeks, they made omnibus allegations of dowry demand and harassment. Smt. Santosh Saket (PW-2) mother of the deceased has admitted in para 8 and 9 in her deposition that she and her husband demanded expenditure of marriage of the deceased from the parents and a Panchayat was called, thereafter the appellants refused to repay the expenditure of the marriage. Therefore, an FIR was lodged. She has also accepted that the appellants have a huge agricultural land with them and in the family of the appellants nobody goes for job of labourer. They are involved in the cultivation. Under such circumstances, the allegations of dowry demand and harassment 148 appear to be not correct. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant No.3 be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.25089/ 2013 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant No.3 namely Satyanarayan Saket shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/3/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 149 Criminal Appeal No.2758/2013 Criminal Appeal No.2792/2013 08.01.2014 Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for appellant Gopal @ Vikky @ Appa Burman and Shri Kaustubh Singh, Advocate for the remaining appellants.

Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.23832/13 and IA No.24088/13, applications for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.

The appellant Gopal is convicted for the offence under Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced with ten years RI with fine of Rs.5000/-, whereas the remaining appellants are convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC and sentenced in the same manner.

Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the prosecutrix was a married woman, who was living with an old person Chandrika Prasad Tiwari (PW-1), who was not the husband of the prosecutrix. The version of the prosecutrix appears to be unnatural. The place where the alleged offence was done, was visible by so many persons, however the eye- witnesses have turned hostile. No test identification parade has been arranged against the accused Gopal and there is no named FIR against him. It was expected from the prosecutrix that soon after the incident, she would have informed the various witnesses about the incident, but Chandrika Prasad Tiwari (PW-

1), Ashok Kumar (PW-8), Raja Sahu (PW-11), Jitendra (PW-12) etc. did not confirm that the prosecutrix intimated them about the incident. The FIR was lodged with delay of two days. In 48 hours after the incident, nothing could be found in the vaginal 150 swab of the prosecutrix, however the FSL report Ex.P-6 is positive, which indicates that before examination of the prosecutrix, she would have entered into a fresh intercourse after the incident. No DNA has been obtained from the samples so that it can be inferred that the DNA found in the vaginal swab was of the appellants. Under such circumstances, there are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then their appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, the aforesaid applications are allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellants namely Gopal @ Vikky @ Appa Burman, Chhanga @ Mohammed Salim and Ramesh Prasad Gupta shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) each with one surety bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10/3/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 151 Criminal Appeal No.2702/2013 07.01.2014 Shri Narayan Dubey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.26853/2013, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and sentenced with maximum period of five years' RI with total fine amount Rs.200/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him. The deceased was the wife of the appellant, who died after few years of her marriage. Initially a charge under Section 304-B of IPC was appended against the appellant but he was acquitted from that charge. No charge under Section 306 of IPC was framed by the trial Court, however the appellant is convicted for that offence. It was alleged against the appellant that he was in habit to assault his wife after consuming the liquor. However, the alleged overt-acts of the appellant do not fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of IPC, and therefore prima facie no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the appellant. The remaining offence is not so grave. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. The appellant remained in the custody for 18 months. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

152

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.26853/ 2013 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Anil @ Pakku shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10/3/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 153 Criminal Appeal No.1566/2013 07.01.2014 Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available. Heard on IA No.21284/2013, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced with six years' RI with fine amount Rs.1,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a youth of 20 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him. The deceased was the wife of the appellant, who died within five months of her marriage. It is alleged in the dying declaration that the applicant alleged about her chastity that she was involved with her brother-in-law and thereafter she was committed suicide. The overt-acts as alleged against the appellant do not fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of IPC, hence no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against him. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. The appellant has already deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

154

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.21284/ 2013 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Rajesh shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10/3/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 155 Criminal Appeal No.1655/2013 06.01.2014 Shri Manoj Kushwaha, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.15560/13 an application for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.

The appellants are convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC and sentenced with ten years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- each.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are reputed citizen of the locality. They were on bail during the trial. The prosecutrix was shown to be 17 years old girl, whereas the incident took place on the date prior to the amendment in IPC. The FIR was lodged with a delay of 3-4 days and the names of present appellants were not mentioned in the FIR. The prosecutrix has admitted that the appellants were shown by the police in the police station prior to arrangement of test identification parade. Under such circumstances, there are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then their appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, the aforesaid application is allowed.

156

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellants namely Ashok Kushwaha and Jainidhan @ Bholu Kushwaha shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) each with one surety bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 17/2/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 157 Criminal Appeal No.2366/2013 18.12.2013 Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.21160/13 an application for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 363, 366, 344 of IPC and sentenced with maximum period of ten years' RI with total fine of Rs.4,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. The prosecutrix was found to be above 18 years of age. In her cross -examination, she has accepted that she did not intimate her parents before leaving the house, though she could intimate them. Under such circumstances, prima facie the prosecutrix was a consenting party. No alleged offence is made out against the appellant. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and the appellant cannto be kept in the jail for an unlimited period. Under such circumstances, if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, the aforesaid application is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Suber alias Subel shall remain suspended and 158 he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 21/2/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 159 Criminal Appeal No.2580/2013 18.12.2013 Shri Shashank Upadhyaya, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.25330/13 an application for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 326 and 324 of IPC and sentenced with maximum period of five years' RI with total fine of Rs.200/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a youth of 26 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him. He was released on bail during the trial, however he remained in the custody for approximately 190 days till today. After considering the medical evidence, it appears that the victim did not sustain any grave injury, and therefore prima facie no offence under Section 326 of IPC is made out against the appellant. Looking to the age of the appellant and his first offence, his sentence for the offence under Section 324 of IPC may be reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody. Under such circumstances, if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, the aforesaid application is allowed.

160

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Ajju @ Ajay shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/2/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 161 Criminal Appeal No.1814/2010 22.11.2013 Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the appellant No.2. Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.1837013, an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.2.

The appellant No.2 is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC and sentenced for ten years' RI and three years' RI with fine of Rs.500/-..

Learned counsel for the appellant No.2 submits that the appellant remained in the custody for more than 3 ½ years and the appeal could not be decided, therefore in the light of the order of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of "Salim Javed Vs. State of Rajasthan", [(2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 354], the appellant may be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

In the light of the order of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Salim Javed (supra), it is a fit case in which the execution of jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended and he may be released on bail. Consequently, IA No.18370/13 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant No.2 namely Smt. Kaushalya Bai shall remain suspended and she be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the 162 Registry of this Court on 19/12/2013 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 163 Criminal Appeal No.1641/2010 22.11.2013 Shri Dilip Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant No.3. Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.18645/13, an application for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.3.

The appellant No.3 is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and sentenced for seven years' RI.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.3 submits that the appellant remained in the custody for more than four years and the appeal could not be decided, therefore in the light of the order of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of "Salim Javed Vs. State of Rajasthan", [(2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 354], the appellant may be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant No.3 namely Miththulal @ Neelkanth shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19/12/2013 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

164

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 165 Criminal Appeal No.347/2012 16.08.2013 Shri M.S.Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to convert IA No.10384/13 into an application for suspension of jail sentence.

Prayer is allowed.

Heard on converted application which a repeat application for suspension of jail sentence whereas his previous application was dismissed being withdrawn.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 8/20-B(2) sub Clause (B) of NDPS Act and sentenced for six years' RI with fine of Rs. 30,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is alleged against the appellant that he had 4 kg Ganja with him whereas he remained in the custody for more than two years. Under such circumstances, there is possibility that his sentence may be reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody and if he is not released on bail, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant shall deposit 50% of the fine amount before the trial Court. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, the aforesaid application is allowed.

166

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Kailash Mehra shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount and 50% of the fine amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 30/9/2013 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 167 Criminal Appeal No.2431/2012 26.07.2013 Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.11322/2011, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant whereas his previous application was dismissed on merits.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 147, 452, 323/149 (three counts) and sentenced with maximum period of two years with fine of Rs.2500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a youth of 28 years of age, though there is a bail jump found before the trial Court. However, the appellant is sentenced for the offence under Section 323 of IPC with six months' RI only and sentence for all the counts is required to run concurrently. Under such circumstances, the sentence under Sections 452 and 149 of IPC may be reduced to the period of six months. If the execution of jail sentence of the appellant is not suspended, then the present appeal may turn infructuous. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.11322/ 2013 is allowed.

168

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Ravindra shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 2/9/2013 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 169 Criminal Appeal No.1816/2012 28.06.2013 Shri Y.K.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.10191/2013, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 324 (two counts) and 323/34 (two counts) of IPC and sentenced for maximum period of six months RI with total fine of Rs.1500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant could not appear before the trial Court on the given date and he could not produce the order of suspension from this Court, and therefore it was directed that he would not be enlarged on bail. However, he remained in the custody for two months. Looking to the period of sentence, the present appeal cannot be decided within that period and the appeal may turn infructuous. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.10191/ 2013 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Tularam shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of 170 Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 21/8/2013 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 171 Criminal Appeal No.2320/2009 11.01.2013 Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.14373/2012, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376, 323 of IPC and sentenced for seven years' RI with fine amount Rs.500/- and three months' RI.

Initially the appellant was enlarged vide order dated 7.4.2010, but he jumped the bail, and therefore his second application was dismissed on 27.6.2012.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that initially the FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and thereafter she added the crime of Section 376 of IPC against the appellant. The appellant remained in the custody for more than 1 ½ years, and therefore if he is convicted for the offence under Section 354 of IPC, then he remained in the custody for more than appropriate sentence, which could be passed. Due to illness, he could not appear before the Court, therefore he prays for one more opportunity. The appellant is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- from his previous bond amount to show his bonafide intention. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

172

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.14373/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Mohd. Shamim shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- of his previous bond amount before the trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 18/2/2013 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 173 Criminal Appeal No.1484/2012 21.11.2012 Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri R.P.Tiwari, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.14749/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted and sentenced as under:-

     Section u/s              Sentence                  Fine
420 of IPC              RI for 3 years       50,000/-
467/120-B               RI for 7 years       50,000/-
468/120-B               RI for 3 years       50,000/-

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality. A compromise took place between the complainant and the appellant, and therefore offence under Section 420 of IPC is compounded. He has deposited the remaining fine amount of Rs.one lakh before the trial Court. Sufficient time will be required for disposal of the appeal. The appellant shall follow the conditions imposed upon him. There are fair chances of success of this appeal after compromise. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.14749/ 2012 is allowed.

174

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Surjeet Singh Bagga shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 175 Criminal Appeal No.312/2012 19.11.2012 Shri Anand Nayak, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.6522/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and sentenced for ten years' RI with fine amount Rs.1,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a youth of 18 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him. He was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He has deposited the fine amount before the triLearned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw the application on behalf of appellant No.1 Daulat Vishwakarma.

Prayer is allowed.

Application (IA No.13960/12) is dismissed being withdrawn for the appellant No.1.al Court. All the witnesses including the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution evidence. It is true that some injuries were found in the private parts of the prosecutrix, but it is nowhere established that any intercourse was done by the appellant to the prosecutrix, and therefore no offence under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC is made out against the appellant. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

176

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.6522/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Indrapal shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 18/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 177 Criminal Appeal No.1888/2012 19.11.2012 Shri A.D.Mishra, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.18448/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC and sentenced for five years' RI with fine amount Rs.1,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He is ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. Initially it was stated by the complainant in the FIR that the appellant assaulted him by an axe and remaining accused persons were present at that time. But in his statement before the trial Court, he has stated that it was the accused Kariyam, who assaulted him by a farsa. The victim sustained only one injury. At appears that the appearance of the appellant is shown unnecessarily to implicate him falsely. No overt-act of the appellant is proved by the complainant that he participated in the crime. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

178

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.18448/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine amount before the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Maan Singh shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 18/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 179 Criminal Appeal No.1906/2012 19.11.2012 Shri A.D.Mishra, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.18677/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.

Learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw the application on behalf of appellant No.2 Kariyam Singh.

Prayer is allowed.

Application (IA No.18677/12) is dismissed being withdrawn for the appellant No.2.

The appellant No.1 Bal Singh is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC and sentenced for five years' RI with fine amount Rs.1,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.1 submits that the appellant No.1 was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He is ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. Initially it was stated by the complainant in the FIR that the appellant No.1 assaulted him by an axe and remaining accused persons were present at that time. But in his statement before the trial Court, he has stated that it was the accused Kariyam, who assaulted him by a farsa. The victim sustained only one injury. At appears that the appearance of the appellant No.1 is shown unnecessarily to implicate him falsely. No overt-act of the appellant No.1 is proved by the complainant that he participated in the crime. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. Under such circumstances, it 180 is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.18677/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant No.1 deposits the fine amount before the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant No.1 namely Bal Singh shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 18/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 181 Criminal Appeal No.1677/2012 07.11.2012 Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.18636/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced for seven years' RI with fine amount Rs.13,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He is ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. Actually the deceased was the wife of the appellant who expired after eight years of her marriage, and therefore no presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is available to the prosecution. The overt-acts as alleged against the appellant do not fall within the purview of Section 107 of IPC, hence no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against him. The remaining offences are not so grave. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.18636/ 2012 is allowed.

182

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine amount before the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Gulab Patle shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 183 Criminal Appeal No.2171/2012 05.11.2012 Shri M.K.Tripathi, Advocate for the appellants. Shri G.S.Thakur, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.21352/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.

The appellants are convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC and sentenced for maximum period of three years' RI with total fine amount Rs.1500/- each.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are reputed citizen of the locality, who have no criminal past alleged against them. Both of them are young youths of 22-20 years respectively. They are in custody for last 18 months, whereas maximum sentence of three years is granted. There is possibility that the sentence may be reduced to the period which they have already undergone in the custody. They are not previous convict. Under such circumstances, if the execution of jail sentence is not suspended, then the present appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.21352/ 2012 is allowed.

184

Thus, it is directed that if the appellants deposit the fine amount in the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellants namely Guddu @ Rakesh and Rama @ Ramshanker shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) each with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 14/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 185 Criminal Appeal No.1442/2012 05.11.2012 Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.14348/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307/34 and 324/34 of IPC and sentenced for maximum period of five years' RI with total fine amount Rs.2,000/-.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality. He is Up Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. He is falsely implicated in the matter. He has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. The identity of the appellant could not be established either by the complainant or the eye-witnesses. His name is unnecessarily implicated due to political enmity. It is nowhere alleged that the appellant was the person, who assaulted on the chest of the victim, and therefore no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the appellant either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC. The remaining offences are not so grave. The appellant remained in the custody for more than seven months. Under such circumstances, there are fair chances of success of this appeal. It is also submitted that the wife of the appellant is suffering from serious illness and except the appellant there is nobody to look after his wife. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

186

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.14348/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Surendra shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 187 Criminal Appeal No.1474/2012 05.11.2012 Shri Rajesh Sen, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.18067/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307 and 342 of IPC and sentenced for maximum period of five years' RI with total fine amount Rs.2,500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality. He was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He is ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. Actually the victim Vikas Tiwari neither sustained any grievous nor fatal injury, therefore no offence under Section 307 or 326 of IPC will be made out. At the most offence under Section 324 of IPC may constitute. Whereas the appellant remained in the custody for 16 months. Under such circumstances, there are fair chances of success of this appeal. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.18067/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine amount in the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of 188 appellant namely Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 189 Criminal Appeal No.1945/2012 05.11.2012 Shri Manish Datt, Sr. Advocate with Shri P. Dubey, Advocate for the appellants.

Shri G.S.Thakur, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.21269/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.

The appellants are convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 148, 307/149, 323/149 and sentenced for maximum period of seven years' RI with total fine amount Rs.200/- each.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them. They are ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. Actually one injury sustained to the victim Anup Singh which may be said to be grievous or fatal. In all four injuries were caused to the victim Anup Singh, whereas he has implicated 6-7 persons in the case. He could not say that the appellants were the persons who assaulted him by any weapon. On the contrary, he has accepted that the appellant Jhalle had a stick at the time of the incident, whereas no injury of stick was found to him. He has accepted that the head injury caused to him was caused by Chhote and Vikram, and therefore it is nowhere alleged against the appellants that they caused head injury. Under such circumstances, the appellants could not be convicted for the offence under Section 307 read with Section 149 or 34 of IPC. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the 190 execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.21269/2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellants deposit the fine amount in the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellants namely Jainandan Singh and Jhalle Singh @ Shivnandan Singh shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) each with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 191 Criminal Appeal No.2107/2012 31.10.2012 Shri P.P.Budholiya, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.20707/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellans.

The appellants are convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 294, 323/34 (2 counts), 325/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced for maximum period of four years' RI with total fine amount Rs.7,300/- each.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them. They are ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. Except of sentence directed for commission of offence under Section 325 of IPC, remaining sentence is not so grave. Looking to the injuries caused to the victim, there are fair chances of reduction of the sentence for that offence. The appellant remained in the custody for one month. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.20707/2012 is allowed.

192

Thus, it is directed that if the appellants deposit the fine amount in the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellants namely Golu @ Omprakash, Kanhiya Pardhi and Satyaprakash @ Banti shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) each with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 13/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 193 Criminal Appeal No.1711/2012 31.10.2012 Shri R.B.Gautam, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.17088/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellants are convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 304(II) of IPC and sentenced for seven years' RI with fine amount Rs.1,000/- each.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are reputed citizen of the locality. They were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them. It is alleged that the appellants assaulted the victim Sukali on 21.7.2006 by sticks. However, no FIR was lodged by the deceased or his parents. The matter was initiated when the deceased died on 25.7.2006. There is no MLC report relating to the injuries caused to the victim. In the postmortem report the doctor could not opine the duration of the injuries in separate manner. After the death of the deceased, the appellants were falsely implicated in the matter by the parents and relatives of the deceased. No acceptable reason has been shown by the father of the deceased about non-filing of the FIR. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

194

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.17088/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellants namely Rajesh Yadav and Dinesh Prasad Yadav shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) each with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 14/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 195 Criminal Appeal No.1712/2012 31.10.2012 Shri R.B.Gautam, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.17090/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 394 of IPC and sentenced for five years' RI with fine amount Rs.1,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a youth of 20 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him. He was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. Actually there is named FIR in which the name of the appellant was not mentioned. It was mentioned that one Golu Thakur was present with the main accused Pappu. It is nowhere established in the FIR that "Golu Thakur" was the name of the appellant. Before the trial Court the complainant turned hostile and when he was declared hostile, in the cross examination he accepted the contents of the FIR, but again in the cross examination done by the defence counsel he has accepted that the appellant has not done any offence with him. Under such circumstances, no case is made out. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

196

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.17090/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Deepak Singh shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 7/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 197 Criminal Appeal No.661/2012 16.10.2012 Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.5336/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 30 and sentenced for five years' RI with fine amount Rs.2,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. There was no relation of the appellant with the deceased so that presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act may apply. Looking to the entire dying declaration given by the deceased, there is no specific allegation against the appellant so that his overt-act may fall within the ingredients of Section 107 of IPC. No offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the appellant. He is in jail without any sufficient cause. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.5336/ 2012 is allowed.

198

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Laxman Singh shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 4/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 199 Criminal Appeal No.1722/2012 16.10.2012 Shri B.J.Chourasiya, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.17182/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 326 and 294 of IPC and sentenced for maximum period of ten years' RI with fine amount Rs.5,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. Actually the eye-witnesses have stated that the appellant assaulted the victim with a stick, and therefore if any offence is constituted against the appellant, then it would be of offence under Section 325 of IPC, which is compoundable. The appellant remained in the custody for more than one year and there are fair chances of reduction of the sentence granted to the appellant, hence appeal may be accepted in future. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.17182/ 2012 is allowed.

200

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Madhav Yadav shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 5/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 201 Criminal Appeal No.1739/2012 16.10.2012 Shri Priyank Choubey, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.17456/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.

Appellants are convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307 and 323 of IPC and inflicted maximum sentence of five years' RI with total fine amount Rs.1250/-.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them. They have deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. Actually the victim Babulal sustained a fracture in his meta carpal bone. The fingers are not the vital part of the body. There was no fracture on the head of the victim Babulal. Under such circumstances, no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out. At the most offence under Section 326 or 324 of IPC may constitute. It was a case of free fight, whereas the trial Court has not considered the report lodged by the appellants. The right of private defence was accrued to the appellant. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

202

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.17456/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellants namely Kanchhedi, Ramratan and Arvind shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 5/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 203 Criminal Appeal No.1986/2012 12.10.2012 Shri G.S.Thakur, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.21137/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 and 450 of IPC and sentenced for maximum period of ten years' RI with total fine amount Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. The prosecutrix was above 18 years of age. No external or internal injury was found on her person. The FIR has been lodged with a delay of two days. Under such circumstances, either the prosecutrix was a consenting party or the appellant is falsely implicated in the matter. Under such circumstances, there are fair chances of success of this appeal. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.21137/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine amount in the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Bhagraj Yadav shall remain suspended and 204 he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 5/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 205 Criminal Appeal No.2009/2012 10.10.2012 Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.19652/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 354-A of IPC and sentenced for five years' RI with fine amount Rs.1500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. The prosecutrix has alleged that the appellant undressed her. However, she has accepted in para 5 of her statement that the incident of undressed her took place in her bathroom situated at Village Biliya and therefore it was not the public place. No offence under Section 354-A of IPC is made out. The overt-act of the appellant may fall within the purview of Section 354 of IPC, which is not so grave. Under such circumstances, there are fair chances of success of this appeal and the sentence may be reduced possibly. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.19652/ 2012 is allowed.

206

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Sinkoo @ Akash shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 4/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 207 Criminal Appeal No.1758/2012 03.10.2012 Shri S.K.Pathak, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.17433/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 8-C/20(B)(II)(b) of NDPS Act and sentenced for four years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. He remained in the custody for approximately one year, and therefore looking to quantity of Ganja, it is possible that jail sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody. Therefore, there are fair chances of success of this appeal. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.17433/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Rajesh Gupta @ Tarzen shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a 208 personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 23/11/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 209 Criminal Appeal No.1563/2012 28.09.2012 Shri S.Tiwari, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.15696/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.

Appellants are convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and inflicted maximum sentence of five years' RI with total fine amount Rs.15000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased died due to burn injuries caused in an arson in their house. A trial was directed for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, 302 and 498-A of IPC. The trial Court has acquitted the appellants for the offence under Section 304-B and 302 of IPC. No charge under Section 306 of IPC was framed against the appellants. However, they were convicted for that offence without any basis. It is nowhere proved that the death of the deceased was suicidal. The offence under Section 498-A of IPC is not so grave. The appellant Ramkrishna remained in the custody for two years, whereas appellant Laxmi Bai remained in the custody for approximately two years. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. The sentence for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC shall not be more than the period which the appellants have already undergone in the custody. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on bail.

210

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.15696/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellants deposit the fine amount in the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellants namely Ramkrishna and Smt. Laxmi Bai shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) each with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 26/11/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 211 Criminal Appeal No.1838/2012 28.09.2012 Shri G.P.Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.18005/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant was enlarged on bail by the trial Court, but thereafter he is absconding. Neither he is appearing before the trial Court nor he has appeared before this Court. Under such circumstances, it is not a good case in which the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

Consequently, IA No.18005/12 is hereby dismissed. The trial Court is directed to execute the jail sentence of the appellant, and as and when the appellant is arrested, then information in this regard be given to this Court.

Case be listed for further orders on 29.10.2012.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 212 Criminal Appeal No.1441/2012 01.10.2012 Shri Paritosh Trivedi, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.14337/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The trial Court had suspended the jail sentence of the appellant for a limited period, but thereafter neither the appellant appeared before the trial Court nor before this Court. Under such circumstances, it appears that he has no respect to the lawful authority. Therefore, if he is enlarged on bail, then he may be escape.

Consequently, IA No.14337/12 is hereby dismissed. The trial Court is directed to execute the jail sentence of the appellant, and as and when the appellant is arrested, then information in this regard be given to this Court.

Case be listed for further orders on 17.10.2012. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 213 Criminal Appeal No.1977/2012 28.09.2012 Shri Atul Upadhyaya, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.19335/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 411/34 and 414/34 of IPC and sentenced for maximum period of two years' rigorous imprisonment with total fine of Rs.10000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. He was on bail upto 13.9.2012 by the trial Court. However, he could not appear on that date given by the trial Court for his appearance. However, he assures that he will be regular in appearing before the office of this Court in future. Looking to the period of sentence, the present appeal cannot be decided within that period and the appeal may turn infructuous. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.19335/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Pappu @ Vinod Kewat shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty 214 thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22/11/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 215 Criminal Appeal No.1538/2012 28.09.2012 Shri Imtiaz Husain, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.15303/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced for five years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. Actually the incident took place in a spur of moment. The culprit was unknown to the complainant. The appellant was shown to the complainant before the police and thereafter the test identification parade was arranged. Under such circumstances, the identification of the appellant is doubtful. It is not established that the appellant was the person who assaulted the victim. Secondly, the victim did not sustain any fatal injury. No vital organ was found cut. Under such circumstances, where the victim was not known to the appellant, there was no intention of the appellant to kill him. No offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out. At the most offence under Section 324 of IPC may constitute. However, the appellant remained in custody for more than 20 months. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

216

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.15303/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Shahid Khan shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20/11/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 217 Criminal Appeal No.1832/2012 17.09.2012 Shri A.D.Mishra, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has surrendered before the trial Court and copy of the order sheet dated 15.9.2012 passed by the trial Court is submitted for perusal.

Heard on IA No.179732012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced for maximum period of two years. Initially the sentence was suspended by the trial Court upto 6.9.2012, but appellant remained absconding after 6.9.2012 though no suspension was granted by this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant shall be regular in appearing before the office. He was on bail during the trial and looking to the sentence imposed upon the appellant, the present appeal cannot be decided within that period. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.17973/ 2012 is allowed.

218

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Suresh shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court on 29/10/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 219 Criminal Appeal No.1326/2009 14.09.2012 Shri K.L.Pandey, Advocate for the appellants. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.18081/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.1 Deepak @ Bhura.

Appellant No.1 is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced for one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant No.1 was on bail, but he did not appear before the office of the Court on 19.1.2012 and on subsequent dates given, therefore warrant of arrest was issued and ultimately he was arrested.

After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that there is no reason shown as to why the appellant No.1 did not appear before the office on 19.1.2012. However, looking to the period of sentence, one more opportunity may be given to the appellant No.1 to remain on bail. Consequently, IA No.18081/12 is hereby allowed. It is directed that if appellant No.1 namely Deepak @ Bhura furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court that he shall appear before the Registry of this Court on 7/11/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time, then he shall be released on bail and execution of his jail sentence shall remain suspended.

220

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for information.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 221 Criminal Appeal No.1004/2012 14.09.2012 Shri R.B.Gautam, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.9643/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 8-C/20(B)(II)(b) of NDPS Act and sentenced for four years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. It is alleged that 1.4 kg Ganja was found with the appellant i.e. only 400 gram above than the small quantity, whereas the appellant remained in the custody for ten months. Under such circumstances, there is possibility that his sentence may be reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody. Therefore, there are fair chances of success of this appeal. If execution of jail sentence is not suspended, then present appeal may turn infructuous. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.9643/ 2012 is allowed.

222

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Chhotelal Choudhary shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 9/11/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 223 Criminal Appeal No.1390/2012 14.09.2012 Shri Narayan Dubey, Advocate for the appellants. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.17259/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellants No.1 and 5 are convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 148, 307/149 of IPC and inflicted maximum sentence of five years' RI with total fine amount Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants No.1 and 5 were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them. They have deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. The name of appellant No.5 was not told by the complainant Hardayal (PW-4) and his wife Leela Bai (PW-5) that he assaulted to the complainant on any any vital part of the body. Similarly, the complainant Hardayal (PW-4) has admitted in his cross examination that he could not see that amongst the accused persons who gave the second assault on his head, whereas first assault was given by co- accused Addu @ Navab Singh. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellants No.1 and 5 were the members of the unlawful assembly and therefore they could not be convicted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC either directly or with the help of Section 149 of IPC. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. Co-accused Lekhram was released on bail in Criminal Appeal No.1422/12 vide order dated 29.8.2012. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that 224 the execution of jail sentence be suspended and appellants No.1 and 5 be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.17259/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellants No.1 and 5 namely Shrilal Keer and Mohan Keer shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) each with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 7/11/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 225 Criminal Appeal No.1822/2012 10.09.2012 Shri P.P.Budholiya, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted the copy of order sheet dated 6.9.2012 passed by the trial Court by which it is clear that the appellant is in custody.

Heard on IA No.17874/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced for one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He is ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. Looking to the period of jail sentence, if execution of jail sentence is not suspended, then present appeal may turn infructuous. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.17874/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine amount in the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Guddu @ Umesh Patel shall remain 226 suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 17/10/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 227 Criminal Appeal No.1213/2012 03.09.2012 Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.11967/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced for two years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He is ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. He remained in the custody for 15 months and there is possibility that his sentence may be reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody. Therefore, there are fair chances of success of this appeal. If execution of jail sentence is not suspended, then present appeal may turn infructuous. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.11967/ 2012 is allowed with some tough conditions.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine amount in the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of 228 appellant namely Kamal Kanjar shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with two surety bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 8/10/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 229 Criminal Appeal No.1329/2012 03.09.2012 Shri P.S.Tiwari, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.17084/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.3 Surendra.

Appellant No.3 is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced for ten years' rigorous imprisonment.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant No.3 was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. Omnibus allegations are made by the parents and relatives of the deceased, whereas the sister of the deceased alleged nothing against the appellant No.3. Co- appellant Kishori Bai was released on bail vide order dated 25.7.2012 and material against the appellant No.3 is similar to her. Under such circumstances, there are fair chances of success of this appeal. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail on the ground of parity.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.17084/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant No.3 namely Surendra Kumar shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a 230 personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 9/10/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 231 Criminal Appeal No.1850/2010 31.08.2012 Shri Anuj Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.6066/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

This is repeat application, whereas previous application was dismissed on 8.10.2010 on merits.

The order dated 8.10.2010 was passed on merits, and therefore there is no need to re-appreciate the evidence again and again before disposal of the present appeal. Consequently, IA No.6066/12 cannot be allowed. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 232 Criminal Appeal No.1422/2012 29.08.2012 Shri Kuldeep Singh Rajput, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.15823/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 148, 307/149 of IPC and inflicted maximum sentence of five years' RI with total fine amount Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. The appellant was not the main accused in the case according to the complainant Hardayal (PW-4). Leela Bai (PW-5) wife of the complainant did not say anything against the appellant. Similarly, Lakhanlal (PW-6), brother of the complainant has admitted in his cross examination in para 12 that appellant Lekhram was not present at the time of incident. Under such circumstances, it appears that the appellant is falsely convicted. He was not present and he did not participate in the alleged crime. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

233

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.15823/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Lekhram shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 3/10/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 234 Criminal Appeal No.1326/2012 24.08.2012 Shri J.P.Dhimole, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.13024/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 326 and 294 of IPC and sentenced for two years' RI with fine amount Rs.700/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial. He did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. He has complied the order of this Court and surrendered before the trial Court. The copy of the order sheet dated 24.7.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sidhi is submitted for perusal. Looking to the period of sentence, the present appeal cannot be decided in that period. If the appellant is not enlarged on bail, then the appeal may turn infructuous. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.13024/2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Girish Kumar Tiwari shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a 235 personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 27/9/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 236 Criminal Appeal No.1565/2012 24.08.2012 Shri Manish Datt, Sr. Advocate with Shri P. Dubey, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.15713/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.1.

Appellant No.1 is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506-II of IPC and sentenced for maximum period of seven years' RI with fine amount Rs.10,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a young youth of 24 years of age, who was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He is ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. The prosecutrix was shown to be 20 years of age. The FIR has been lodged with a delay of six days. On her medico legal examination, it was found that her hymen was torn in a fresh, and therefore it appears that the injury caused to the prosecutrix is not corroborated to the incident which took place six days prior to the medical examination. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that the appellant was falsely implicated in the matter. No explanation has been given for the delay caused in the report. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant No.1 be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

237

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.15713/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant No.1 deposits the fine amount in the trial Court, then execution of jail sentence of appellant No.1 namely Kishore alias Pandey shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 27/9/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 238 Criminal Appeal No.1228/2012 23.08.2012 Shri P.S.Gaharwar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.12099/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced for one year's RI with fine amount Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial. He did not misuse the liberty granted to him. He has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. Looking to the period of sentence, the present appeal cannot be decided in that period. If the appellant is not enlarged on bail, then the appeal may turn infructuous. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.12099/2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Kanhaiyalal shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/9/2012 and 239 on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 240 Criminal Appeal No.1361/2012 13.08.2012 Shri Pramod Thakre, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.15673/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.

Appellants are convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307/149, 326/149 and 147 of IPC and inflicted maximum sentence of five years' RI with total fine amount Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are reputed citizen of the locality, who were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them. They are ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. Actually no doctor has informed that the injuries caused to the victim Kalim were fatal in nature, and therefore no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the appellants. No injury was found to be caused by sharp cutting weapon, and therefore no offence under Section 326 of IPC may be constituted against the appellants. It is alleged against the co- accused Veeru and Vikky that they assaulted the victim Kalim by various weapons. However, at the most offence under Section 325 of IPC may be constituted against the appellants. There are fair chances of compromise between the parties. Therefore if execution of jail sentence is not suspended, then present appeal may turn infructuous. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on bail.

241

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.15673/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellants deposit the fine amount in the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellants namely Kalu @ Premlal and Chhotu @ Rajendra shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) each with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/9/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 242 Criminal Appeal No.1391/2012 08.08.2012 Shri Aseem Dixit, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.13960/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.

Learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to withdraw the application on behalf of appellant No.1 Daulat Vishwakarma.

Prayer is allowed.

Application (IA No.13960/12) is dismissed being withdrawn for the appellant No.1.

Remaining appellants are convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC and sentenced for maximum period of seven years' RI with total fine amount Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants No.2 and 3 are ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. They were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them. They were not aware that co-accused Daulat would assault the main victim Umesh in such a manner. No common intention of the appellants No.2 and 3 can be presumed with co-accused Daulat. Under such circumstances, no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the present appellants. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. Remaining offences are not so grave. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution 243 of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.13960/2012 for appellants No.2 and 3 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellants No.2 and 3 deposit the fine amount in the trial Court, then execution of jail sentence of appellants namely Ganesh Vishwakarma and Laxmi Vishwakarma shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) each with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court on 17/9/2012.

Case be listed on 17.9.2012 for appearance of appellants No.2 and 3.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 244 Criminal Appeal No.1207/2012 07.08.2012 Shri Alok Vagrecha, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.11931/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 354 and 458 of IPC and sentenced for maximum period of one year's RI with total fine amount Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who was on bail during the trial. He has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. Looking to the period of sentence, the present appeal cannot be decided in that period. If the appellant is not enlarged on bail, then the appeal may turn infructuous. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.11931/2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Yashvant Singh shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with a 245 surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court on 18/9/2012. Case be listed on 18.9.2012 for further orders. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 246 Criminal Appeal No.2052/2011 01.08.2012 Shri T.S.Ruprah, Sr. Advocate with Shri H.Ruprah, Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.10272/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 304 (Part-II) read with section 34 of IPC and sentenced for ten years' RI with fine amount Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased Satish died due to rupture of spleen. It is nowhere mentioned in the postmortem report that any of the rib of the deceased was broken, and therefore it appears that he had an enlarged spleen. One co-accused Daulat Singh @ Charli Raja assaulted the deceased by kick on his abdomen, therefore that was the fatal attempt done by that accused Daulat Singh @ Charli Raja, who is no more at present. It is alleged against the present appellant that he also participated in assaulting the deceased. The appellant never knew that co-accused Daulat Singh @ Charli Raja would assault the deceased in such a manner. No common intention of the appellant can be presumed with co-accused. In such circumstances, looking to the overt-act of the present appellant, only offence under Section 323 of IPC may be constituted, which is not so grave so that the appellant can be kept in custody for an unlimited period. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. Under these circumstances, it 247 is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.10272/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine amount in the trial Court, then execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Vivek shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 12/9/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Case be listed on 13.9.2012 for further orders. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 248 Criminal Appeal No.959/2012 25.07.2012 Shri Ranjeet Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.9053/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) of IPC and inflicted maximum sentence of seven years' RI with total fine amount Rs.6000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant a young youth of 24 years of age, who has deposited the entire fine amount before the trial Court. He has no criminal past at all. The prosecutrix is shown by her educational record to be 16 ½ years of age at the time of incident. However, looking to her physical appearance as depicted in MLC report, she appears to be 18 years of age. Father of the prosecutrix Ashok Ahirwar (PW-2) has admitted in para 16 of his statement that during the period when the prosecutrix was with the appellant, Amit, brother of the prosecutrix met with the prosecutrix, who told him that she will come back after one day. It is also stated by the same witness that he talked with the prosecutrix on mobile phone to his son Amit at that time. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. No offence under Section 366 or 376 of IPC is made out, whereas offence under Section 363 of IPC is not so grave. The appellant remained in the custody for one and half years approximately. Under such circumstances, it is prayed 249 that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.9053/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Anil Choudhary shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 12/9/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 250 Criminal Appeal No.1264/2012 20.07.2012 Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.12602/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 304 (Part-II) and 451 of IPC and inflicted maximum sentence of four years' RI with fine amount Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him. He shall deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. Actually the case was dependent upon the postmortem report given by Dr. Surendra Singh (PW-5). Dr. Surendra Singh in his postmortem report Ex.P-12 has mentioned that the deceased died due to cardiac failure because he sustained some fatal injuries, and therefore flow of blood was obstructed. However, in cross examination he found that all the injuries caused on the chest were of such a nature that those could be caused by scratching by a nail. No rib was found broken. If someone is assaulted by kicks and fists or chappal, then such type of injuries could not be caused to the heart. It is a case of heart failure and the appellant could not be convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC. The overt-act of the appellant comes under the category of Section 323 of IPC only. The appellant is in custody for last one year and if he is not enlarged on bail, then the present 251 appeal may turn infructuous. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.12602/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine amount in the trial Court, then execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Joharu Banjara shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10/9/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 252 Criminal Appeal No.1222/2012 13.07.2012 Mohd. Ali, Advocate for the appellants. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.12048/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellants are convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 326 and 326/34 of IPC and inflicted maximum sentence of three years' RI with total fine amount Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants are reputed citizen of the locality, who were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them. They have deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. Looking to the period of the sentence, appellants were enlarged on bail by the trial Court for a limited period. They could not get the bail from this Court in that period and therefore they surrendered before the trial Court on 30.6.2012. Sufficient time will be required for disposal of the present appeal, and therefore if execution of jail sentence is not suspended, then present appeal may turn infructuous. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.12048/ 2012 is allowed.

253

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellants namely Firoz Khan, Sanawwar Khan and Shakir shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) each with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 3/9/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Case be listed for further orders on 4.9.2012. Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 254 Criminal Appeal No.1118/2012 02.07.2012 Shri Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.10619/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376(1) and 450 of IPC and inflicted maximum sentence of seven years' RI with total fine amount Rs.4000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant shall deposit the entire fine amount before the trial Court. The appellant is a young youth of 22 years of age, who was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. The prosecutrix is shown to be 19 years of age. The FIR was lodged with a delay of at least two days. No any corroboration was found in her medical report. On the contrary, she has admitted that before the incident lamp was illuminated in the room and was blown by the air. Under such circumstances, there was no light by any means. The prosecutrix did not say about the fact that as to how she could identify the appellant. It appears that either the prosecutrix was a consenting party or the appellant is falsely implicated in the matter. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. If execution of jail sentence is not suspended, present appeal may turn infructuous. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

255

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.10619/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine amount in the trial Court, then execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Manoj Dheemar shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 30/8/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 256 Criminal Appeal No.1226/2012 29.06.2012 Shri Jafar Khan, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.12083/2011, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 323 of IPC and sentenced for three months' RI with fine amount of Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court and trial Court has suspended the execution of jail sentence of the appellant upto 4.7.2012. The appellant remained on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. Present appeal cannot be decided within three months, and therefore if execution of jail sentence is not suspended, present appeal may turn infructuous. Consequently, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.12083/ 2011 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Babu shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his 257 appearance before the Registry of this Court on 27/8/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 258 Criminal Appeal No.435/2012 27.06.2012 Shri G.S.Baghel, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.3409/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.1 Praveen Singh @ Reshu Singh.

Appellant No.1 is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced for five years' RI with fine amount Rs.5000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.1 submits that the appellant No.1 has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. The offence under Section 325 of IPC is compoundable and there are fair chances of compromise between the parties. Consequently, there are fair chances of success of this appeal. Appellant No.1 was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. Consequently, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant No.1 be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.3409/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that execution of jail sentence of appellant No.1 namely Praveen Singh @ Reshu Singh shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the 259 satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 3/9/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 260 Criminal Appeal No.2841/2011 22.06.2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.24537/2011, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376(2)(g) of IPC and inflicted maximum sentence of 10 years' RI with total fine amount Rs.4000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that initially the name of one Raju Kalua was mentioned in the report relating to missing of the prosecutrix Ex.P-10 and thereafter the name of Raju Kalua was replaced by the name of present appellant due to enmity. The prosecutrix (PW-6) has admitted in para 14 of her cross examination that her father directed her that now prosecutrix has to inform the name of Raju Raghuvanshi in place of Raju Kalua, and therefore in her each statement she told the name of Raju Raghuvanshi to be the main accused. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that the appellant is falsely implicated in the matter. He is in custody without any substantial reason. It is further submitted that the appellant was kept in custody for the entire trial without any reason. Consequently, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

261

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.24537/ 2011 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine amount in the trial Court, then execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Raju alias Rajesh Raghuvanshi shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 27/8/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 262 Criminal Appeal No.2973/2011 22.06.2012 Shri S.K.Dwivedi, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.10695/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and inflicted maximum sentence of 7 years' RI with total fine amount Rs.5000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix was shown to be 17-19 years of age in the ossification test and looking to the statement of the prosecutrix (PW-1) it would be apparent that there were several opportunities to the prosecutrix where she went to the public places and she could make hue and cry, but she did not make it. She moved with the appellant without any resistance. Under such circumstances, prima facie it appears that she was a consenting party. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. If execution of jail sentence is not suspended, then present appeal may turn infructuous. Consequently, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.10695/ 2012 is allowed.

263

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine amount in the trial Court, then execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Arjun Singh shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 27/8/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 264 Criminal Appeal No.233/2012 20.06.2012 Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.5647/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and inflicted maximum sentence of 7 years' RI with total fine amount Rs.1500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him. He was released on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. The deceased was the wife of the appellant, who died after 7 years of her marriage, and therefore no presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is applicable in the present case. Looking to the overt-act as established by the prosecution, it does not fall within the essential ingredients of Section 107 of IPC, and therefore no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the present appellant. The appellant has already suffered the custody for more than one year which would be the sufficient sentence for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. If present appellant is not enlarged on bail, then present appeal may turn infructuous. Under such circumstances, the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

265

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.5647/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Hariram shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 27/8/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 266 Criminal Appeal No.543/2012 18.06.2012 Shri K.S.Rajput, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.4423/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 366 of IPC and inflicted sentence of 5 years' RI with fine amount Rs.2,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a young youth of 20 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him. He was enlarged on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. The prosecutrix was shown to be 16-17 years of age at the time of incident, but her age could not be ascertained by any sufficient basis. She could be above 18 years of age according to the computation of age on the basis of ossification report. She remained with the main accused for 4-5 days without any resistance. It appears that she was a consenting party. It is alleged by the prosecutrix that the appellant closed her mouth by chunni and thereafter he handed over to the prosecutrix to the main accused and left the spot. However, eye witnesses Seema (PW-1) has stated that it was the main accused Motiram who closed the mouth of the prosecutrix by her chunni. She did not support the prosecutrix for the evidence given by her against the present appellant. Under such circumstances, it appears that the present appellant is falsely implicated in the matter. No role of the appellant is established by which he may be convicted for 267 the alleged offence. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. Sufficient time will be required for disposal of the present appeal. If execution of jail sentence is not suspended, then present appeal may turn infructuous. Under these circumstances, the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.4423/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant Munna shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 6/8/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 268 Criminal Appeal No.1024/2012 18.06.2012 Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the appellants. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.9770/2012, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants No.1, 2 and 4.

Appellants are convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC and inflicted maximum sentence of 5 years' RI with total fine amount Rs.3,000/- each.

Learned counsel for the appellants No.1, 2 and 4 submits that the appellants shall deposit the fine amount before the trial Court. It is alleged that co-accused Bhola Singh assaulted the victim Mohan Singh on his head by base of the gun causing fracture in his head. According to the FIR, it would be clear that initially co-accused Bhola Singh started the quarrel and present appellants came to the spot thereafter. No common intention of the present appellants can be presumed with co-accused Bhola Singh. Under such circumstances, no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the present appellants either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC. Sufficient time will be required for disposal of the present appeal. Remaining offences are not so grave and they are compoundable. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. Present appellants were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to them. Under such circumstances, the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on bail.

269

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, IA No.9770/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellants No.1, 2 and 4 deposit the fine amount in the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellants No.1, 2 and 4 namely Halku Singh, Narayan Singh and Chandrabhan Singh @ Baddal shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) each with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 6/8/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 270 Criminal Appeal No.1185/2010 02.12.2011 Shri Om Shankar Pandey, Advocate for the appellant. Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State. Heard on IA No.23259/2011, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I of IPC and sentenced for 10 years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-.

This is repeat application on behalf of the present appellant. His first application was dismissed being withdrawn on 20.10.2010.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. He further submits that the appellant is innocent. He has wrongly been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I of IPC. Actually the victim came with 2-3 bombs. He exploded two bombs. The Investigating Officer found remains of various bombs from the spot. One live bomb was found in the pocket of the deceased. In such circumstances, the appellant assaulted the victim by stone and brick on his head to save himself and other members of that locality, otherwise by explosion the victim could cause the death of so many persons. There are fair chances of success of this appeal, because the incident took place due to right of private defence, and therefore the appellant could not be convicted for other offences. The appellant remained in custody for three and half years and there are no chances of early hearing of this appeal in near future.

271

Under these circumstances, the execution of jail sentence be suspended and he be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, IA No.23259/2011 is allowed.

Thus, the execution of jail sentence of appellant Rajesh @ Padwa is hereby suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 3/1/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari 272 First Appeal No.895/2013 23.12.2013 Smt. Amrit Ruprah, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S. Ganguly, Advocate for the respondents. Heard on admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.

Also heard on IA No.14562/13 an application for stay. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he filed reply to the application and wants to file some documents.

Case be listed for consideration of IA No.14562/13 in the week commencing from 6.1.2014.

In the meanwhile, it is directed that the status-quo shall be maintained by the parties till next date of hearing.

Certified copy as per rules.

         (N.K.Gupta)                               (K.K.Trivedi)
         Vacation Judge                                Vacation Judge



Ansari
                           Criminal Appeal No.2433/2011
         10.10.2014

Shri O.P.Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.16714/2014, a repeat application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant was on bail vide order dated 18.11.2011 and he could not appear before the office on the given dates. On 6.5.2014 a bailable warrant was issued against the appellant and thereafter he was arrested and produced before the Court on 9.7.2014. It appears that the appellant was on bail and on his absent bailable warrant was issued. If the appellant would have furnished the bail bonds before the serving officer, then he would have been enlarged on bail. However, now it is directed that if the appellant namely Dhoor Singh furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, then he shall be released on bail, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 9/12/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta) Judge Ansari

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Vijay Chaudhari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 July, 2018