Allahabad High Court
Rohit vs State Of U.P. on 26 August, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:148507
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7556 of 2025
Rohit
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P.
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Narendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 80
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
Ref: On Appeal
Heard Mr. N.K. Singh, the learned counsel for appellant and the learned AGA for State.
Admit.
Summon the lower court record.
Notice on behalf of State/opposite party-1 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.
List this appeal for hearing in due course.
Ref: Order on Application for Suspension of Sentence
Heard Mr. N.K. Singh, the learned counsel for appellant and the learned AGA for State.
Perused the record.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 11.8.2025, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge FTC No.1 , Farrukhabad in S.S.T No. 575 of 2021, arising out of Complaint Case No. 146 of 2021, under sections 498A, 306 IPC, Police Station- Mohammadabad, District- Farrukhabad applicants/appellant has approached this Court by filing aforementioned criminal appeal.
By means of the impugned judgement and order, passed by court below applicant/appellant has been convicted under section 498A IPC and therefore sentenced to 2 years imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, applicant/appellant is to undergo one month additional imprisonment, under section 306 IPC therefore sentenced to six years rigorous imprisonment, along with fine of Rs. 30,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, applicant/appellant is to undergo three months' additional imprisonment, under section 506 IPC therefore sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment, along with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, applicant/appellant is to undergo four months' additional imprisonment. Impugned judgement and order further records that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
Learned counsel for applicant/appellant submits that applicant/appellant was not enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial. As such, applicant/appellant is under incarceration since 11.5.2021. Accordingly, applicant/appellant has filed above mentioned application for suspension of sentence/grant of bail during the pendency of present appeal.
Mr. A.P. Singh, the learned counsel for applicant/appellant, in support of the application for suspension of sentence submits that even though applicant/appellant is named as well as convicted accused and undergoing incarceration, however, irrespective of above but in view of the facts as have now crystalized on record, applicant/appellant is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of present appeal.
In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for applicant/appellant submits that applicant/appellant was enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial. However, there is nothing on record to show that applicants/appellants misused the liberty of bail. As such, applicant/appellant is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of present appeal also.
According to the learned counsel for applicant/appellant sentence awarded by Court below against applicant/appellant is a definite sentence/punishment, inasmuch as the maximum sentence awarded to applicant/appellant by Court below is six years. However, in view of heavy pendency of criminal appeals before this Court coupled with the fact that there is an acute shortage of Hon'ble Judges in this Court, therefore there is no likelihood of the present appeal being heard in near future. On the aforesaid premise, the learned counsel for applicant/appellant submits that in view of aforementioned peculiar and precarious circumstance, there is uncertainty in the hearing of present appeal. As such, applicant/appellant is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of present appeal.
To buttress his submission the learned counsel for applicant/appellant referred to the judgement of Supreme Court in Atul @ Ashutosh Vs. State of M.P., (2024) 3 SCC 663 wherein the Apex Court has itself observed that where definite sentence, punishment has been awarded by Court below against an accused and there is no possibility of the appeal being heard in near future, then in such a circumstances the appellate Court must enlarge such a convict on bail during the pendency of appeal.
According to the learned counsel for applicant/appellant there does not exist any such distinguishing feature in the case of present applicant/appellant on the basis of which the ratio laid down by Apex Court in aforementioned judgment could be so distinguished so as to deny bail to applicant/appellant, during the pendency of present appeal.
Applicant/appellant is in jail since 11.5.2021. As such, applicant/appellant has undergone four years and three months of incarceration, As per custody certificate, attested photo copy which has been supplied by the learned counsel for applicant/appellant in Court and taken on record, applicant/appellant has undergone four years, three months and 16 days of incarceration (date of custody certificate is 23.8.2025). On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant/appellant submits that maximum sentence awarded to applicant/appellant is six years. As such, applicant/appellant has underrgone almost 3/4 of the sentence awarded by Court below. He, therefore, submits that in view of aforesaid peculiar circumstance, applicant/appellant is therefore liable to be enlarged on bail, during the pendency of present appeal.
Challenging the veracity of impugned judgement and order passed by court below, the learned counsel for applicant/appellant submits that no charge under section 306 IPC was framed by Court below against applicant/appellant. Referring to paragraph 52 of the impugned judgement, the learned counsel for applicant/appellant submits that charges were framed against applicant/appellant under section 304 B IPC and alternatively under section 302 IPC. He, therefore submits that once the charge itself under section 306 IPC was not framed, no conviction could have been awarded by Court below under section 306 IPC as the parameters for establishing the charge under section 302/304 B IPC are materially different. He therefore submits that in view of aforesaid illegality in the impugned judgement and order passed by Court below, As such, the impugned judgement and order is unsustainable in law. As such, prima facie the present appeal is liable to be allowed by this Court.
Even otherwise, applicant/appellant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to their credit except the present one. In view of above, the uncertainty in the hearing of present appeal, in near future the fact that applicant/appellant were enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial, but there is nothing on record to show that applicant/appellant misused the liberty of bail, and there being no such compelling circumstance on record, warranting custodial arrest of applicant/appellant during the pendency of present appeal learned counsel for applicant/appellant would thus submit that applicant/appellant is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of present appeal. In case the applicant/appellant is enlarged on bail, then in that eventuality they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate in the hearing of present appeal.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant/appellant is a named as well as convicted accused, and under incarceration, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. It is thus submitted by the learned A.G.A. that deceased is no one else but the wife of applicant. The occurrence has ocurred in the house of applicant/appellants. Therefore, by reason section 106, the burden is upon the applicant/appellant to explain the manner of occurrenct. However, the said burden has not been discharged by applicant-appellant before court below. In view of above, no illegality or perversity can be attached to the impugned judgement and order passed by Court below. On the aforesaid conspectus, the learned A.G.A. contends that interest of justice shall better be served in case the appeal itself is heard finally by fixing a short date rather than enlarging the applicant/appellant on bail during the pendency of appeal. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicants/appellants, in support of this application for suspension of sentence as noted herein above with reference to the record at this stage.
Having heard the learned counsel for applicant/appellant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence as well as complicity of applicant/appellant, accusation made this Court finds that applicant/appellant is a named as well as convicted accused, applicant/appellant has been sentenced to 6 years maximum sentence, by court below, as such sentence awarded by Court below to applicants-appellants is a definite sentence punishment, however, in view of heavy pendency of criminal appeals before this Court and also an acute shortage of Hon'ble Judges in this Court, there is no likelihood of the present appeal being heard in near future, as such, in view of aforementioned peculiar and precarious circumstance, there is uncertainty in the hearing of present appeal in near future, as such, prima facie applicant/appellant is liable to be to be enlarged on bail, during the pendency of present appeal, Apex Court in the case of Atul @ Ashutosh (Supra) has itself observed that where sentence awarded to a convict by court below is a definite sentence punishment and there are no chances of the appeal being heard in near future, then in such a circumstance such a convict should be enlarged on bail during the pendency of appeal, the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such distinguishing feature from the record so as to distinguish aforementioned judgement and deny bail to applicant/appellant, the clean antecedents of applicant/appellant inasmuch as he has no criminal history to their credit, except the present one, no such incriminating circumstance has emerged on record so as to warrant custodial arrest of applicant/appellant during the pendency of present appeal, the conviction and sentence awarded to applicant/appelalnt under section 306 is prima facie unsustainable as no change under section 306 IPC was framed againt applicant/appellant by Court below under section 306 IPC, therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application for suspension of sentence, but without making any comment on the merits of the appeal, this Court finds that applicant/appellant has made out a case for bail.
In view of adiscussions made above, the present application for suspension of sentence succeeds and is liable to be allowed.
It is, accordingly, allowed.
Let the applicants/appellant- Rohit be released on bail in aforementioned case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.
It is, however, provided that the amount of fine awarded by court below, if not deposited, shall be deposited by applicant-appellant with the Court below within a period of 1 month from today failing which, the bail granted to applicant-appellant under this order shall stand automatically canceled and he shall be taken into custody at once to serve out the sentence awarded by Court below.
(Rajeev Misra,J.)
August 26, 2025
Arshad
