Allahabad High Court
Bharta vs State Of U.P. on 9 June, 2016
Bench: Abhai Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1752 of 2016
Revisionist :- Bharta
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajiv Sisodia,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Abhai Kumar, J.
This revision has been preferred under Sections 397 / 401 of Cr.P.C against the order 21.05.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, J.P. Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2013 - (Bharta Vs. State of U.P.), whereby the conviction held by 02nd Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division) / J.M. Amroha, in Criminal Case No. 1757 of 2010 - (State Vs. Bharta) Case Crime No. 140/06 dated 24.06.2013 has been affirmed.
The trial court convicted and sentenced the revisionist to undergo six months' simple imprisonment under Section 279 I.P.C; under Section 304-A to undergo two years' simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment to further undergo two months' additional simple imprisonment; and under Section 427 to undergo one years' simple imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment to further undergo one months' simple imprisonment.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that neither the revisionist was not named in the F.I.R nor offending vehicle number was mentioned in the F.I.R. After eight days complicity of the revisionist came into picture.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A argued that witnesses of the incident have supported the case of prosecution and the appellate court has rightly dismissed the appeal affirming the verdict of the trial court.
It is an admitted case that revisionist was not named in the F.I.R and no vehicle number was mentioned therein too though the witnesses are said to have seen the incident and followed the offending vehicle. Thus, it can be inferred that the witnesses must have noted the vehicle number, but the same is wanting in the F.I.R.
Admit.
Summon the original trail court record as well as lower appellate court.
List immediately after receipt of both the above records.
Considered the prayer for bail.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist ? applicant that trial court as well as appellate court submitted earlier and guilty as he was falsely implicated in the case whereas learned A.G.A opposed that three persons were killed at the time of incident though the punishment is for the two years.
In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist ? applicant ? let the revisionist - appellant ? Bharta, be released on bail in Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2013 ? (State Vs. Bharta) arising out of Criminal Case No. 140 of 1996, under Sections 279, 304-A & 427 I.P.C Police Station - Rajabpur, District Amroha, on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. The fine may be deposited within one month after release of the revisionist ? applicant.
Order Date :- 09.6.2016
Vinod.
