Bhartu vs State Of U.P.
2024 Latest Caselaw 21807 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Bhartu vs State Of U.P. on 3 July, 2024

Author: Gautam Chowdhary

Bench: Gautam Chowdhary

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:108053
 
Court No. - 43
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 286 of 2024
 

 
Revisionist :- Bhartu
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Harindra Pratap
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
 

In Re: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents, and perused the record.

2. Cause shown for delay is sufficient.

3. The delay in filing the instant revision is condoned, accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed.

4. Office to allot its regular number.

In Re: Revision

5. Admit.

6. Summon the lower court record.

7. List thereafter.

In Re: Criminal Misc. Bail Application

8. The instant revision has been preferred assailing the legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 22.12.2016 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur in Case No.297 of 2012 titled as State v. Bhagwat etc., arising out of Case Crime No.506 of 2011, under sections 147, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Pilkhuwa, District Hapur, whereby the revisionist along with other co-accused persons has been convicted and sentenced with maximum imprisonment of three years under section 325 IPC, besides other sections of IPC, and impugned judgment and order dated 25.7.2023 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hapur in Criminal Appeal No.36 of 2018, whereby the order of conviction passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hapur dated 22.12.2016 was confirmed.

9. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist has been falsely implicated in the present case; the alleged incident took place on 13.11.2011, while the impugned FIR was registered after a delay of seven days of the said incident, and the said delay has not been explained by the prosecution; no independent eye witness as alleged has been examined by the prosecution; nothing incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the revisionist; no specific role has been assigned to the revisionist; there is no record of the injured as to where their treatment was done; the revisionist has no criminal antecedents to his credit; the revisionist has been languishing in jail since 25.7.2023; the trial court has erroneously convicted the revisionist without properly appreciating the evidence and the material available on record; the revisionist undertakes that if he is enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the liberty.

10. Keeping in view the nature and gravity of offence, taking into account the period of incarceration and considering the fact that there is no likelihood of this revision being heard in near future, the revisionist is entitled for bail.

11. Let the revisionist- Bhartu be released on bail in the aforementioned case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

12. On acceptance of bail bond, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record of this revision.

13. 100% of the fine awarded by the court below under the impugned judgment shall be deposited by the revisionist within a month from his release on bail.

Order Date :- 3.7.2024

CP.sahani