Allahabad High Court
Ravindra Kumar @ Pagaltey And Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 8 July, 2013
Bench: Naheed Ara Moonis
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 768 of 2013
Appellant :- Ravindra Kumar @ Pagaltey And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Connected with
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1223 of 2013
Appellant :- Satyasheel And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Counter affidavit and written objection filed today on behalf of State, are taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, the learned AGA and have been gone through the record.
Since both the appeals are arising out of the judgment and order dated 13.2.2013, passed by Sessions Judge(E.C.P.), Court No.26, Shahjahanpur in Session Trial No.1036 of 2008, State Vs. Satyasheel & others, therefore, the prayer for bail in these appeals is being disposed of by means of a common order.
A prayer for bail has been made in both the appeals, which has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.2.2013, passed by Sessions Judge(E.C.P.), Court No.26, Shahjahanpur in Session Trial No.1036 of 2008, State Vs. Satyasheel & others, arising out of case crime no.32 of 2003, under Sections 148, 307/149, 336/149 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Sehramau, District Shahjahanpur, convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 148 IPC for two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, under Section 307/149 IPC for five years years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, under Section 336/149 IPC for one month rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.200/- each and under Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act for three months rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.300/- each, with default stipulation.
The prosecution case in a nutshell is that the complainant's son Dhirendra Kumar Shukla was going for tuition at about 7:30 a.m., the accused persons namely Ravindra Kumar alias Pagaltey, Satyasheel, Sandip Kumar, Satish Chandra and Santosh Kumar intercepted him and in a planned manner, Satish Chandra and Ravindra Kumar alias Pagaltey had caught hold his hands and Santosh Kumar, Satyasheel and Sandip Kumar brutally assaulted him with knives by assaulting him first with a piece of a brick from behind. The said incident was witnessed by various persons. The complainant reached at the spot and took his son for treatment at Primary Health Centre, Khutar, who was referred to the District Hospital, where he was admitted in Emergency Ward. The case was initially registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 307 IPC on 21.2.2003. After investigation the charge sheet was submitted against all the accused persons. Later on during trial one accused Sandip Kumar died, hence the case was abated against him.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, that no motive has been assigned in the first information report. The medical evidence is inconsistent with the prosecution case. It has not been specified as to who has caused injury with brick. Two persons, namely Satish Chandra and Ravindra Kumar alias Pagaltey were said to have caught the hands of the victim and three persons, namely Santosh Kumar, Satyasheel and Sandip Kumar(deceased) had assaulted him with knife. Merely two witnesses of facts, complainant and his injured son as P.W.1 and P.W.2 have been examined. There is discrepancy in the statement of the witnesses with the prosecution case. The medical report shows that there was lacerated wound, of which there is no explanation. The trial court has convicted the appellants against the evidence on record. The conviction of the appellants and the sentence awarded is too excessive. The appellants were on bail during trial and had not misused the liberty of bail. They are in jail since the date of conviction i.e. 13.2.2013. There is no likelihood of early hearing of appeal in near future because of huge pendency of old appeals, therefore the appellants may be released on bail during the pendency of appeal. In case they are enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra the learned AGA has opposed the prayer of bail and supported the findings of the trial court and has contended that all the appellants have been charge sheeted by the Investigation Officer after investigation. There is active participation of all the appellants for causing injury to the victim and they have been rightly convicted with the aid of Section 149 IPC. Therefore they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. In case they are enlarged on bail they will try to misuse the liberty of bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds a fit case for bail to the appellants, Ravindra Kumar alias Pagaltey and Satish Chandra, therefore prayer for bail of both the accused-appellants, namely, Ravindra Kumar alias Pagaltey and Satish Chandra is allowed. However, since there is active participation of the accused-appellants, Satyasheel and Santosh Kumar for causing injury to the victim, therefore, their prayer for bail is hereby rejected.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the appellants, namely, Ravindra Kumar alias Pagaltey and Satish Chandra, convicted and sentenced in Session Trial No.1036 of 2008, State Vs. Satyasheel & others, arising out of case crime no.32 of 2003, under Sections 148, 307/149, 336/149 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Sehramau, District Shahjahanpur, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The photocopies of the bonds so furnished be transmitted to this Court to be kept on record of the appeal.
It is made clear that the realization of fine is not stayed.
Office is directed to prepare the paper book and list this appeal thereafter for hearing.
Order Date :- 8.7.2013
Mustaqeem.
