Allahabad High Court
Dinesh & 2 Others vs State Of U.P. on 8 July, 2019
Bench: Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1202 of 2019
Appellant :- Dinesh & 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajiv Raman Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Summon the record of the Lower Court.
Reply/Objections may be filed by the State, within two weeks.
List after two weeks along with the record of the Subordinate Court.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants is taken on record.
(In Ref:- C.M. Application No.73795 of 2019)
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as Shri S.N. Tilhari, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State, pertaining to the prayer of bail of the appellants.
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants/Dinesh, Raj Kumar and Pravesh to set-aside the judgment and order dated 06.06.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4/Special Judge (E.C. Act), Sitapur, in Sessions Trial No. 34 of 2016, "State Vs. Dinesh and others", arising out of Case Crime No. 169 of 2013, relating to Police Station Thangaon, District Sitapur to the extent of conviction and sentence of the appellants, appeal be allowed and appellants be acquitted as well as suspend the conviction and sentences awarded by the learned Trial Court against the appellants and appellants be released on bail, during the pendency of instant criminal appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellants while pressing the prayer of bail submits that, the trial Court without appreciating the evidence available on record in right perspective has wrongly convicted the appellants, while it was apparent on record that, the prosecution failed to bring whom the charges levelled against the appellants.
It is further submitted that, during the course of trial, the appellants were enlarged on bail and there is no instance of misusing the liberty granted to them.
It is further submitted that, after being convicted by the trial Court, the appellants were enlarged on interim bail, vide order dated 06.06.2019, a question-answer, pertaining to the fact that the appellants were enlarged on interim bail by the trial Court, while convicting them has also been placed on record through supplementary affidavit dated 06.07.2019. There is no likelihood that the appellants after release on bail may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail, so granted by this Court.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer for bail of the appellants, on the ground that, the appellants have committed a serious offence and has been rightly convicted by the Court below, and the appellants are not entitled for bail. However, he could not confront the factual submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants.
Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, without commenting upon merits, I am of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. In view of above, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.
Let the appellants/Dinesh, Raj Kumar and Pravesh involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) The appellants shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment.
(ii) The appellants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or in commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 8.7.2019/Praveen
