Allahabad High Court
Bhagwan Dei vs State Of U.P. on 25 April, 2019
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6551 of 2018
Appellant :- Bhagwan Dei
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
(Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 01 of 2018)
Counter affidavit filed today by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
By judgement and order dated 17.10.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-XII, Bareilly, the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentence for the offence under section 364 IPC, for ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/- in S.T. No. 352 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 337 of 2014, under section 364 IPC, P.S. Bhojipura, District Bareilly.
Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has contended that FIR was lodged as missing report on 05.7.2014 and thereafter about sixteen days latter i.e. on 21.7.2014, on the written report given by the informant, an offence was registered against accused-appellant and in that FIR it was stated that one Dharam Veer was missing and now it has come to their knowledge that his wife Bhagwan Dei was having illicit relationship with the nephew Shishupal, the co-accused. On the basis of this FIR, investigation was conducted and the charge sheet was submitted. Similar kind of statement was also given by P.W.1-Nand Kishor, P.W.2-Thakur Das, P.W.3-Chandra Prakash and P.W.4-Hori Lal, who have stated that abductee had gone with co-accused Shishupal to Almora for doing some labour work, where from co-accused Shishupal has returned back but abductee did not return. It has also been contended that till date abductee is missing.
As submitted by learned A.G.A. that this was in the knowledge of abductee that both the accused persons were in relationship, but it has not come any where that what was his reaction if it was in his knowledge and if he was aware of this relationship then what was the occasion for him to go to Almora with co-accused.
On this basis, learned counsel for the accused-appellant has submitted that whole prosecution version was based on hypothesis and imagination. He has further submitted that from the date of conviction i.e. 17.10.2018, the accused-appellant is in jail, prior to that she was on bail during trial and she never misused the liberty of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and submitted that learned trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused appellant after appreciating evidence on record.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also that there is no chance of early hearing of this appeal, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find it to be a case for bail during pendency of appeal.
Let the appellant-Bhagwan Dei convicted in S.T. No. 352 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 337 of 2014, under section 364 IPC, P.S. Bhojipura, District Bareilly, be released on bail during pendency of appeal on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
So far as sentence of fine is concerned, on depositing 50% of fine, the remaining fine shall remain stayed during pendency of appeal. 50% fine shall be deposited within a month from receipt of this order.
As soon as personal bond and sureties are furnished, after keeping photostat copies of the same, original copies are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith from the trial court.
List the appeal for hearing after three months.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019
RCT/-
