Allahabad High Court
Rajendra And 2 Ors. vs State Of U.P. on 20 May, 2019
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3688 of 2018
Appellant :- Rajendra And 2 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Krishna Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
At the very out set, learned counsel for the accused-appellants has submitted that he is not pressing bail application in respect of appellant no. 1-Rajendra (husband), hence same may be rejected as not pressed. Accordingly, bail application of appellant no. 1-Rajendra (husband) is rejected as not pressed.
Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State on bail application. Perused the record.
By the judgement and order dated 18.5.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pilibhit, the accused-appellants have been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 357 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 922 of 2015, P.S. Neuriya, District Pilibhit and sentenced for the offence under section 304-B IPC, for ten years rigorous imprisonment, for the offence under section 498-A IPC, for two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- and for the offence under section 4 D.P. Act, for one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further four months additional imprisonment.
Submission of learned counsel for the accused-appellants is that accused-appellant nos. 2 and 3 are, father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased and they have been falsely implicated in this case. There is general allegation of demand of dowry and cruelty against the accused-appellants. There is no specific allegation against the accused-appellants regarding demand of dowry and cruelty. The accused-appellants were not present in house when incident took place. The deceased died while she was cooking food. Further submission is that accused appellants are in jail since 18.5.2018 and earlier also during investigation they were in jail for about three months.
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, nature of accusation against appellants 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 no. 2-Tara Chand and appellant no. 3-Smt. Jagdei convicted in Sessions Trial No. 357 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No. 922 of 2015, under Sections 304-B, 498-A, and Section 4 D.P. Act, P.S. Neuriya, District Pilibhit, be released on bail during pendency of appeal on their furnishing personal bonds 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.
Since the lower court record is said to have been received, the office is directed to prepare paper book within four months.
List the appeal for hearing after four months.
Order Date :- 20.5.2019
RCT/-
