Allahabad High Court
Brijesh Kumar & Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 12 June, 2014
Bench: Shashi Kant
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 770 of 2014
Appellant :- Brijesh Kumar & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Uttam Kumar Awasthi,Jagan Nath Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
This appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 9.5.2014/12.5.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 757 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No. 456 of 2008, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 363 I.P.C. for six years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- each, and under section 366 I.P.C. for a period of 8 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- each, and in default of fine additional imprisonment for two months each. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that impugned judgment and order is bad in the eye of law because the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record.
Above submission was opposed by the learned A.G.A.
Considering the above submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the matter requires re-consideration by this Court.
Admit.
Learned A.G.A. has put in appearance to represent the State, therefore, there is no need to issue notice.
List in third week of September, 2014. Meanwhile the lower court record be summoned within a period of six weeks from today through District Judge, Hardoi.
Order Date :- 12.6.2014
Monika
C.M. Application No. 54145 of 2014
in Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 770 of 2014
Appellant :- Brijesh Kumar & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Uttam Kumar Awasthi,Jagan Nath Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants/applicants and the learned A.G.A. representing the State of U.P.
Learned counsel for the applicants/appellants submits that the appellants/applicants were bail during trial and they have not misused the liberty of bail. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 363 I.P.C. for six years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- each, and under section 366 I.P.C. for a period of 8 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- each, and in default of fine additional imprisonment for two months each.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that impugned judgment and order is bad in the eye of law because the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the conduct of the accused applicants are not good and the applicants have committed serious offence and they are not entitled for bail.
Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is a fit case for grant of bail.
Let the applicants Brijesh Kumar and Pradeep Kumar be released on bail in Sessions Trial No.757 of 2010, Case Crime No. 456 of 2008, under Section 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S. Majhila, District Hardoi during the pendency of the appeal on his furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The applicants will not misuse the liberty of bail.
(ii) The applicants will fully co-operate in expeditious hearing of this appeal.
However, the fine is not stayed and the same may be deposited by the appellant, if not already deposited, within thirty days from the date of release, failing which this order of bail automatically stands cancelled.
Order Date :- 12.6.2014/Monika
