Allahabad High Court
Rajit Ram And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 1 May, 2023
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 753 of 2023
Appellant :- Rajit Ram And 2 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home , Lko.
Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mukesh Singh
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Order on Appeal.
List/put up this matter in the week commencing 10.07.2023.
Order on Bail Application.
Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Mukesh Singh, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
Instant appeal has been filed with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 13/14.02.2023, passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar, in Sessions trial no. 8 of 2012; State versus Rajit Ram and others, arising out of case crime no. 142 of 2005, PS- Hanswar, District-Ambedkar Nagar.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He next added that the appellant were on bail during the trial and they never misused the liberty of bail. He next added that though, there is allegation that the bomb was hurled but the same did not explode and there is no injury to anyone. He next submits that the learned trial court did not consider the aforesaid facts and evidences in its right perspective and has passed excessive punishment order. He further submits that the appellants are law-abiding citizens and they were not involved in committing the offence and the appellants undertake that they will not misused the liberty of bail if granted. He submits that the appellant no. 1, namely Rajit Ram is suffering from serious ailment and once a time he was referred to Lari Cardiology hospital, Lucknow. Further, added that there is no possibility of hearing of the appeal in the near future and thus, submissions is that the appellants may be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the submission aforesaid and submits that there is serious allegation against the appellants and they are involved in committing the offence and after thorough investigation it was found that they are involved in committing the same and thus, trial commenced and concluded and the appellants were punished. He submits that the appellants are not entitled for any relief.
Learned A.G.A appearing for the State has also supported the version of the complainant.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it reveals that the appellants were on bail during the trial and they never misused the liberty of bail. Further, the appellants are in jail since 13.02.2023, and they undertake that they will not misuse the liberty of bail if, granted and there seems to be no possibility of hearing of the appeal in the near future, coupled with the fact that evidences adduced by the defence have not been considered in its right perspective.
Considering the aforesaid facts, the bail application of the appellants is allowed.
Let the appellants, Rajit Ram, Surendra Kumar and Panchram involved in the aforementioned case crime no. 142 of 2005 be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
It is made clear that the fine is not stayed.
On acceptance of bail bond, the lower court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record.
Order Date :- 1.5.2023
Mayank
