Allahabad High Court
Durga Devi vs State Of U.P. on 13 June, 2014
Bench: Shashi Kant
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 785 of 2014
Appellant :- Durga Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Asthana
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Sri Ritwick Rai Advocate has filed his power on behalf of the complainant. The same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned A.G.A. for State of U.P. and Sri Ritwick Rai, counsel for complainant Sanjay Bansal.
This appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and order dated 04.06.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Lucknow in Session Trial Case No. 246/2009, arising out of Case Crime No. 118/2007, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 498-A I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine, further three months rigorous imprisonment, under section 323/34 I.P.C.,rigorous imprisonment for six months, and under section 324/34 I.P.C. rigorous imprisonment for one and half years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of fine, further one and half months rigorous imprisonment, under section 316 I.P.C. rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 20,000/-, in default, further six months rigorous imprisonment, under Section 506 I.P.C. rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine, further one and half years rigorous imprisonment and under section 4 of D.P. Act, rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, further one and half months rigorous imprisonment.
Learned counsel for the appellants 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. and learned counsel for the complainant.
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 4th week of September, 2014. Meanwhile lower court record be summoned within a period of six weeks from today through District Judge, Lucknow
Order Date :- 13.6.2014/Monika
Criminal Misc. Application No. 54226 of 2014
in
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 785 of 2014
Appellant :- Durga Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Asthana
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Ritwick Rai, learned counsel for the complainant.
Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the appellant/applicant was on bail during trial and she has not misused the liberty of bail. 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 applicant is not good and the applicant has 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 and also submits that accused appellant/applicant has assigned the actual role in beating and other cruelties on the victim and she has actually participated for dropping the pregnancy of the victim Nidhi Agrawal by catching hold of her hands.
Let the applicant Durga Devi be released on bail in Sessions Trial Case No. 246 of 2009, Case Crime No. 118/2007, under Sections 498A, 323/34, 324/34, 316, 506 I.P.C. & Section 4 of D.P. Act, P.S. Mahila Thana, Hazratganj, District Lucknow 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 applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail.
(ii) The applicant will fully co-operate in expeditious hearing of this appeal.
However,50% of the fine shall remain stayed and the 50 per cent of the same may be deposited by the appellant, if not already deposited, within15 days from the date of release, failing which this order of bail automatically stands cancelled.
Order Date :- 13.6.2014/Monika
