Allahabad High Court
Rajneesh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 5 May, 2023
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3049 of 2022
Appellant :- Rajneesh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Appellant :- Kailash Nath Mishra,Rahul Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Order on Appeal
List/put this matter in the week commencing 03-07-2023 for hearing.
Order on C.M.Application No. 01 of 2022.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant,, Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant-appellant with a prayer to release the applicant-appellant on bail in Sessions Trial No. 159 of 2013,arising out of Case Crime No. 304 of 2011, under sections 307/34 of I.P.C., Police Station-Dhanepur, District-Gonda during pendency of the appeal.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He next added that there is a material contradiction in the prosecution story as the statements of the P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 i.e. the complainant and the injured person, respectively, have stated that the injured person has received injuries on the back side. He next added that the doctor who has examined the injured stated in his cross examination, that when the injured was brought before him, he received firearm injuries in an accident and therefore, the same was registered in the accidental register though, later on after cutting the same, he himself has mentioned in the Medico Legal Register. He further added that the nature of the injuries was initially mentioned as caused with hard and blunt object, but, later on after cutting the same, it was mentioned as caused due to firearm. He added that this evidence has not been appreciated rightly by the trial court and ignoring all those contradictions, the trial court has passed the Judgment and order and has convicted the appellant. He added that there is a criminal case history of the appellant, which pertains to the year 1988, wherein the present appellant was convicted and was enlarged on bail in the said case. He added that the appellant was on bail during trial and he never misused the liberty of the same. Further added that the appellant is in jail since 10-10-2022 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the hearing of the instant appeal and thus, the present appellant/accused may be released on bail during the pendency of the present appeal.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that after thorough investigation, it was found that the appellant was found involved in committing offence and thus, the Chargesheet was filed and after detailed discussion by the trial court in its' Judgment and order, it was found that the prosecution has succeeded to prove it's case beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the present appellant has been convicted. There is a case criminal history of the appellant, wherein the appellant has been convicted. He added that there are serious injuries over the body of the injured person and thus, the present appellant is not entitled for any relief.
Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it reveals that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses including the doctor. On the first hand, when the injured was brought before the doctor, the nature of injuries was found caused with hard and blunt object, though, later on after cutting the same, it is mentioned that the same was caused with firearm. Further P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 in their statements recorded before the trial court, have specifically stated that the injured has received injuries on his back side though, the doctor made treatment of the injured, found that the injures were on chest and stomach of the injured person and thus, this creates material doubt in the story of the prosecution. Further the appellant has a case criminal history,which has been explained in para no. 16 of the affidavit filed in support of bail application, wherein he was convicted and after release on bail during the trial, an NCR was managed to be lodged against the appellant though, he was not involved in the offence. The appellant is languishing in jail since 10-10-2022. The appellant was on bail during the trial and he never misused the liberty of the same. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the bail application of the appellant is allowed.
Let the applicant-appellant, Rajneesh, involved in the aforementioned case crime number 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 fine is not stayed and the same shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of one month from the date of his release from the jail.
On acceptance of bail bond and personal bond, the lower court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.
Order Date :- 5.5.2023
AKS
