Allahabad High Court
Hari Prajapati And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5499 of 2022
Appellant :- Hari Prajapati And Another
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,Om Prakash Katiyar
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Om Prakash Katiyar
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Order on Criminal Appeal
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Om Prakash Katiyar, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.06.2022 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kannauj in Sessions Trial Nos. 287 of 2012 (State of U.P. Vs. Hari Prajapati & Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 212 of 2012, Police Station Saurikh, District Kannauj, by which the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 352 IPC and awarded the sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, under Section 504 IPC and awarded the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- and under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act and awarded the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default stipulations. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
Admit.
As Sri Om Prakash Katiyar, advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 2, therefore, there is no need to issue notice on her behalf.
Summon the lower court record.
List after receipt of record.
Order on Bail Application
Supplementary affidavit filed today, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Om Prakash Katiyar, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that learned court below has not appreciated the evidence and material on record in right perspective and has illegally passed the impugned judgment and order dated 30.06.2022 convicting and sentencing the appellants.
Learned counsel for the appellants has next submitted that maximum sentence awarded to the appellants is that of three years and the appellants had already been directed to be released on interim bail by the court below vide order dated 30.06.2022.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the appeal is of the year 2022 and the chances of appeal being heard and decided in near future is very bleak due to heavy dockets and the appellants have no criminal history to their credit, as such, the appellants be released on bail.
Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid the fact that maximum sentence awarded to the appellants is three years and the appellants had already been released on interim bail by the court below vide order dated 30.06.2022.
Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is only for a period of three years and the appellants are already on interim bail. The final disposal of the appeal will take a long time on account of heavy dockets, as such, the prayer for suspending the sentence is allowed.
Let the appellants Hari Prajapati & Ramchandra Sharma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to deposition of entire amount of fine, if already not deposited.
On acceptance of bail bonds, the court below shall transmit the xerox copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record.
Order Date :- 13.9.2022
Arvind
