Allahabad High Court
Rajesh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 702 of 2021
Revisionist :- Rajesh And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajiv Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Learned A.G.A. has accepted notice on behalf of State-respondent no.1.
Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 through the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned as well as through Registered Post.
Requisite steps for service be taken within a week from today.
List this matter after service of notice.
Order on Bail Application
This bail application has been filed with a prayer to enlarge the revisionists on bail during pendency of the revision.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that the opposite party no.2 Smt. Ratna Devi (wife) has moved complaint accusing Rajesh (husband), Bhagwat Prasad (father-in-law), Rukmani Devi (mother-in-law) and Munnu (brother-in-law, Jeth) with an allegation that the accused persons are behaving cruelly and harassing the complainant for demand of dowry.
It is submitted that during the pendency of the case before the Trial Court Bhagwat Prasad (father-in-law) died. The learned Trial Court has illegally convicted the present revisionists and Rukmani Devi, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and under Section 3/4 of D.P Act. The judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is partly confirmed by the first appellate court vide its judgment dated 22.02.2021 with respect to Rajesh and Munnu and allowed the revision with respect to Rukmani Devi (mother-in-law). It is submitted that the court below have failed to consider the evidence on record in right perspective and decided the matter on the basis of conjecture and surmises. There is no clinching and unimpeachable evidence on record to prove the complicity of the present revisionists in the commission of crime, as mentioned in the FIR, beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that revisionists were on bail during trial and they have never misused the liberty during the period of bail.There is no likelihood of hearing and early disposal of present appeal in near future, as such, applicant may be enlarged on bail during pendency of appeal.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the Court below had passed the impugned judgment and order after thorough scrutiny and proper appreciation of the evidences available on record in its right perspective. Hence, the applicant/appellant does not deserve any leniency by this Court and his bail application is liable to be rejected.
Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court below, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, considering the complicity of convict-appellant as well as totality of facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the appeal, I find it appropriate to enlarge the applicant/appellant on bail. Let the applicants/revisionists Rajesh and Munnu, convicted in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2018, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act arising out of Complaint Case No. 03 of 2018 (Smt. Ratna Devi Vs. Rajesh and Others) Police Station-Bahilpurwa, District-Chitrakoot, be enlarged on bail, during pendency of this revision, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
This bail application stands allowed.
It is submitted that the fine imposed by the Trial Court has already been deposited by the present revisionists.
Order Date :- 19.3.2021
pks
