Allahabad High Court
Dubeji Sahani 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. - 699 of 2021
Revisionist :- Dubeji Sahani And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Dixit
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 Trial Court has illegally convicted the present revisionists under Section 498-A IPC sentencing him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and Rs.500 fine each, in default thereof 15 days additional imprisonment.
The aforesaid order passed by the Trial Court has illegally confirmed by the appellate court by the impugned order dated 20.02.2021.
Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its 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 further 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 Dubeji Sahani and Girraj Singh, convicted in Criminal Appeal No.111/2012, under Section 498-A I.P.C. arising out of Complaint Case 135/2002 (Madhu Vs. Dubeji Sahani and Others) Police Station-Sasni Gate, District-Aligarh, 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.
The conviction of the revisionist no.1 Dubeji Sahani in pursuance of the impugned orders shall remain suspended till further orders of this Court.
Order Date :- 19.3.2021
pks
