Allahabad High Court
Charan Singh And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. on 19 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 90
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1375 of 2021
Appellant :- Charan Singh And 2 Others
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Singh Sengar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Issue notice.
Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of the State.
Summon the lower court record.
Order on Bail Application.
Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the trial court has illegally convicted the present appellants under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC for one year rigorous imprisonment each and sentencing the appellants under Section 504 IPC for one year rigorous imprisonment each and convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 506 IPC for three years rigorous imprisonment each.
As per the prosecution case, on 22.07.2015 at about 20:00 hours, the present appellants/accused, who were bearing enmity with the first informant with respect to the land of temple, reached at the doorstep and threatened to life of the family members and thereafter reached at temple and fired shot at the first informant Halke Yadav. In the FIR Charan Singh has been shown armed with rifle, Harendra Yadav has been shown armed with country made pistol and Sugar Singh has been shown armed with stick.
It is submitted that all the injuries as shown in the medical report are simple in nature and the same has not properly been dealt with by the Trial Court in the light of the statements made by Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh, PW-4. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has illegally convicted the present appellants under Sections 323/34, 504 and 506 IPC without properly appreciating the evidence available on record in the 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 appellants in the commission of crime, as mentioned in the FIR, beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the appellants were on bail during trial and they have never misused the liberty during the period of bail. It is further submitted that all the accused after the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, enlarged on interim bail vide order dated 03.02.2021 under Section 389(3) Cr.P.C. There is no likelihood of hearing and early disposal of present appeal in near future, as such, the appellant may be released on bail during the pendency of this 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.
Upon perusing the impugned judgment and hearing learned counsel for the parties, considering the complicity of convict applicants/appellants as well as totality of facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case at this stage, I find it appropriate to enlarge the applicants/appellants on bail.
Let the appellants - Charan Singh, Sugar Singh and Harendra Singh convicted in S.T. No. 89 of 2018 (State vs. Charan Singh and Others) arising out of case crime no. 320 of 2015, under Sections 323/34, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station - Kulpahar, District - Mahoba be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions :
(i) They shall not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever,
(ii) They shall pursue the appeal regularly, and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, and shall co-operate in early disposal of the appeal.
Order Date :- 19.3.2021
pks
