Himanshu Pahadi vs State Of U.P.
2016 Latest Caselaw 5368 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 49
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4110 of 2016
 

 
Appellant :- Himanshu Pahadi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Swetashwa Agarwal,Rajesh Kumar Kanojia
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.for the State of U.P.

It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the trial court has failed to  appreciate the evidence in right perspective and erred in recording the finding of conviction, the judgment  is thus perverse.

Admit.

Summon the lower court record within six weeks from today.

List immediately after receipt of record.

Order Date :- 22.8.2016

Su

.

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4110 of 2016

Appellant :- Himanshu Pahadi

Respondent :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Appellant :- Swetashwa Agarwal,Rajesh Kumar Kanojia

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar,J.

Criminal Misc . Bail Application Application No. 255219 of 2016.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.for the State of U.P.

It has been submitted on behalf of the accused appellant that the loot was committed in the house in the night of 26.10.2015.  During the course of trial P.W.1 injured eye witness ,P.W.2 Subodh Rastogi, P.W. 7, P.W. 8, P.W. 10 and P.W. 11  have not supported the prosecution version and they have been declared hostile.  The court below has not appreciated the evidence in right perspective.

Learned A.G.A.has opposed the bail application.

There is no likelihood of this appeal being heard in near future 

Considering the rival submissions  and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal, I find it a fit case for bail.

Let the appellant Himanshu Pahadi  convicted in S.T.No. 60 of 2016 ( State vs. Himanshu Pahadi & others, relating to case crime no. 500/2015, under sections 394, 411, 450, 397, 34 I.P.C., Police Station Brahmpuri, District Meerut be admitted to bail subject to his executing a personal bond and furnishing two heavy and reliable sureties  in the like sum to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

The appellant is directed to deposit 50% of the amount of fine imposed by the trial court within 10 days from the date of his release from jail and the  realisation of  rest 50%  fine shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal.

Order Date :- 22.8.2016

Su