Allahabad High Court
Raees Ahmad vs State Of U.P. on 17 June, 2021
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 22
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1249 of 2018
Appellant :- Raees Ahmad
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Raghunath Singh,Ganesh Nath Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
(Order on Bail Application)
Heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
Applicant/appellant has been convicted in S.T. No. 647 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 81 of 2015, under section 304/34 I.P.C., P.S. Sidhauli, District- Sitapur and has been sentenced for the offence under Section 304/34 I.P.C. for ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine six months additional imprisonment.
Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant submits that the appellant/applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to malafide intention. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial court without appreciating the evidence on record has convicted the appellant/applicant. Learned counsel further submits that the date of alleged incident was 12.11.2014 at about 09:00 am. The victim died on 24/25.11.2014. But the FIR against the appellant and other co-accused was lodged on 14.05.2015 under Section 302 IPC by means of application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. dated 12.01.2015. After investigation, Hashim and Noor Boran were exonerated and charge-sheet was filed under Section 306 IPC against the appellant and co-accused Kherunisha. But after conclusion of trial, the appellant was convicted under Section 304/34 IPC. Learned counsel further submits that the FIR is delayed by about six months but there is no plausible explanation. Learned trial court did not look this aspect. Learned counsel further submits that there are several contradictions in the statement of prosecutions. No specific role was assigned to the appellant and it is also submitted that the co-accused namely Khairunnisha has already been granted bail by this Court on 14.12.2018.
Learned counsel further submits that during trial, the appellant/applicant was on bail. Presently, he is in jail since 12.07.2018. Learned counsel next submits that due to huge pendency before this Court, there is no chance for expedite disposal of the appeal and appellant/applicant is ready to co-operate with the hearing of appeal for early disposal of this appeal.
Learned A.G.A for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant/ appellant has rightly been convicted for the offence and there is sufficient evidence available on record against the applicant/appellant. Learned A.G.A has further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order and judgment, hence, the applicant/appellant is not entitled for bail.
After hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusal of record and period of sentence, without expressing any opinion on merits, I find that it is a fit case for grant of bail of appellant/ applicant during the pendency of the appeal.
Let the appellant/applicant- Raees Ahmad be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court below on the condition that the appellant/applicant will co-operate with the hearing of the appeal. However, it is made clear that the fine has not been stayed.
As soon as personal bonds and surety bonds are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by trial Judge concerned to be kept on the record of this appeal.
Order Date :- 17.6.2021
SK/-
