Allahabad High Court
Dinesh vs State Of U.P. on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Mohd. Faiz Khan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 758 of 2019
Appellant :- Dinesh
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Naresh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.
(In Ref: C.M. Application No. 50091 of 2019)
Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. for the State is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri S.A.M. Parvez, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This bail application has been moved by the appellant-applicant/Dinesh, who is convict of Sessions Trial No. 42/2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 328/2014, under Sections 328, 379, 411, 120-B I.P.C., P.S, Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar and sentenced for maximum term of 05 years rigorous imprisonment with fine stipulation, vide judgment and order dated 08.04.2019 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IInd, Ambedkar Nagar praying to release him on bail, during pendency of instant appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant while pressing the appeal submits that, the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing as claimed by the prosecution has been committed by him.
It is further submitted that, the appellant has been convicted by the trial Court under Section 411 of the I.P.C. and Sections 328, 379 and 411 with the help of Section 120-B of the I.P.C.
It is further submitted that, there was no evidence on record which may suggest that, there was a criminal conspiracy in between the appellant and other co-accused persons to commit the offence and the Court has convicted the appellant under Section 328 and 379 with the help of Section 120-B of the I.P.C. against the evidence made available on record by the prosecution.
It is further submitted that, it was evident by the evidence produced by the prosecution that, only a case under Section 411 of the I.P.C. was coming out, though the evidence produced pertaining to Section 411 (recovery of the stolen goods) was also not of reliable character and, therefore, the Court below has materially erred in convicting the appellant.
It is further submitted that, the appellant was on bail during the course of trial and there is no instance of misusing the liberty granted to him by the Court. Appellant is not having any previous criminal history and there is no likelihood that the appellant-applicant after release on bail may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail granted by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for bail, but could not confront the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant.
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 appellant-applicant/Dinesh 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) Fine imposed by the trial Court shall be deposited by the appellant within 30 days from his actual release from prison.
(ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment.
(iii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or 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 :- 9.7.2019
Praveen
