Allahabad High Court
Chhotey Lal And Others vs State Of U.P. on 4 August, 2011
Bench: Shri Kant Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 374 CR.P.C. No. - 4529 of 2011
Petitioner :- Chhotey Lal And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- Siddharth Shukla
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA and perused the impugned judgement rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 16, Deoria in Session Trial No. 442 of 1997.
Admit. Summon lower court record.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants haver been convicted and sentenced under sections 147/307/149 and 323/149 IPC and the maximum sentence imposed on each of the appellants is of seven years under sections 307/149 IPC. It was next submitted that each of the co-accused Balesar and Umesh has been convicted and sentenced under sections 148 and 304 Part -I IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year under section 148 IPC and ten years under section 304 Part I IPC. It was next submitted that there was a cross version vide S.T. No. 160 of 1999 (State v Akshaibar & others) in which a judgement of conviction has been recorded by the learned trial court. As many as five persons had sustained injuries from the side of the accused whereas from the complainant's side one person died and two persons sustained injuries. It was next submitted that co-accused Ram Janak, having similar role, has already been enlarged on bail vide the order dated 01.08.2011 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 4407 of 2011, therefore, they are also entitled to bail on the ground of parity. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the appellants were on bail during the trial and never abused the same. It was further contended that in case the appellants are not released on bail, the appeal would, in due course, become infructuous as there is no hope of an early hearing of the appeal due to heavy dockets.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were on bail during the trial and never abused the same and are on interim bail after conviction. The maximum sentence imposed on each of the appellants is of years under sections. It was further contended that in case the appellants are not released on bail, the appeal would, in due course, become infructuous as there is no hope of an early hearing of the appeal due to heavy dockets.
In my opinion, prima facie, the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants have substance, therefore, it is just and expedient to exercise the discretion in favour of the appellant.
Keeping in view the nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the severity of punishment and submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned AGA, I am of the view that the appellants have made out a case for bail.
Let the appellants Chhotey Lal, Ayodhya and Yugul involved in the aforesaid session trial be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal on their each furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
The realisation of half of the fine shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal, provided the appellants deposit half of the fine within one month.
On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bonds, the lower court shall transmit photo state copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record of this appeal.
Let the paper books be prepared.
Connect with Criminal Appeal No. 4407 of 2011 and list the appeal for hearing in due course.
Order Date :- 4.8.2011
shailesh
