Allahabad High Court
Raju & 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. - 772 of 2014
Appellant :- Raju & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Misra,Bimlesh Kumar
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 28.5.2014 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Sitapur in S. T. No.1088 of 2010 in the crime no. 1091 of 2009, whereby appellants have been convicted under Sections 308 I.P.C. for four years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default, the appellants have been awarded three months simple imprisonment to each and under section 323 I.P.C. for six months rigorous imprisonment to each and under Section 506 I.P.C. for six months R.I. to each appellants with fine of Rs. 500/- to each and accused appellant Ram Milan was convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. for six months R.I. and said appellant was acquitted under Section 506 I.P.C. and the appellants Raju, Ram Lakhan including co-accused Ram Milan were acquitted under Section 336 I.P.C.
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, Sitapur.
Order Date :- 12.6.2014/Monika
Criminal Misc. Application No. 54151 of 2014
in Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 772 of 2014
Appellant :- Raju & Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Misra,Bimlesh Kumar
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 on bail during trial and they have not misused the liberty of bail and 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 Raju and Ram Lakhan be released on bail in Sessions Trial No. 1088 of 2010, Case Crime No. 1091 of 2009, under Section 308, 323 and 506 I.P.C., P.S. Sidhauli, District Sitapur 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 appellants, 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
