Allahabad High Court
Kunj Bihari vs State Of U.P. on 11 February, 2022
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1499 of 2021
Appellant :- Kunj Bihari
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Tripathi B.G. Balak,Sushmita Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anand Kumar Srivastava,Pratyush Srivastava,Vivek Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
C.M. Application No.132617 of 2021
Heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant, and perused the lower court record.
The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the appellant in Sessions Trial No.20 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No.346 of 2009, under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 307/149, 427, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Utroula, District Balrampur, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail during the pendency of the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that total eight persons were named in the F.I.R. and during the course of investigation, three persons namely Lalbabu, Mumtaz Ahmad @ Bhure and Chandrashekhar were exonerated and charge sheet was filed against the appellant, Jainendra Kumar, Man Bahar, Aditya Prasad and Jagannath. He further submitted that as per the prosecution case, Raj Narain was the eye witness, during the course of trial, he was produced as a defence witness and he has not supported the prosecution version and stated that in a motorcycle accident with a Nilgai, injured persons received injuries, but all these facts were not considered by the court below in the correct prospective and impugned conviction order was passed. He further submitted that the appellant was on bail during the course of trial and he never misused the liberty of bail. He further submitted that the appellant does not have any criminal antecedents except the present case and he is in jail since 18.09.2021. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for bail during the pendency of the present appeal.
Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant and submitted that on the basis of evidence produced before the trial court, impugned judgment of conviction was passed and there is no illegality in the impugned order, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for bail, but they do not dispute this fact that defence witness namely Raj Narain has not supported the prosecution evidence and as per the prosecution, he was the eye witness of the incident, and they also do not dispute this fact that the appellant was on bail during the course of trial and he never misused the liberty of bail.
Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the complainant, and going through the lower court record as well as contents of the impugned judgment of conviction, it is evident that Raj Narain was mentioned as eye witness of the incident by the prosecution, but he was not placed before the trial court by the prosecution and he was relied by the defence as a defence witness, and in his deposition before the trial court he has not supported the prosecution version, and in near future there is no possibility of final hearing of the appeal, therefore, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.
Accordingly, the application for bail is allowed.
Let the applicant-appellant - Kunj Bihari - be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
The appellant is directed to deposit the fine within two months from the date of his release.
On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bond, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record.
The sentence of appellant awarded vide order dated 18.09.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No.20 of 2010 arising out of Case Crime No.346 of 2009, under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 307/149, 427, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Utroula, District Balrampur is stayed till the pendency of the appeal.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it along with a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 11.2.2022
S. Shivhare
