Allowed

Rambaran @ Langdu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2024CRLA/1091/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court suspended the sentence and granted bail to an 72-year-old appellant convicted under Sections 307 and 504 IPC pending his criminal appeal, citing age and lack of pre-meditation, while specifying strict conditions and clarifying no prejudice to trial.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended; appellant released on bail pending appeal upon furnishing personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties.

Rambaran @ Langdu vs State of U.P. Thru… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1091 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Rambaran @ Langdu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Awasthi,Ram Saran Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

(Order on Appeal)

¶6

Heard.

¶7

Admit.

¶8

Summon Trial Court Record.

¶9

(C.M. Application No. 1 of 2024)

¶10

Heard.

¶11

The present bail application under Section 389 (1) of CrPC has been filed seeking bail in S.T. No.474/2023 (State vs. Rambaran alias Langdu), arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.214 of 2022, under Sections 307, 324, 504 I.P.C., registered at Police StationSubeha, District- Barabanki, wherein the applicant/ appellant has been convicted vide judgment/order dated 31.01.2024 in issue in this appeal, under Section 307 IPC and sentenced for 5 (five) years rigorous imprisonment and with fine of Rs.2,000/and in default of payment of fine, further six months additional rigorous imprisonment, as well as under Section 504 IPC and sentenced for 1 (one) year rigorous imprisonment.

¶12

While pressing the bail application, counsel for the appellant/applicant stated that the applicant, aged about 72 years, has no criminal history and is the real brother of the

¶13

injured, is in judicial custody since 29.08.2022. He further submitted that on account of financial crunch, the appellant/applicant could not even engaged the counsel to defend the case before the trial court which is evident from the recitals of the judgment of the conviction dated 31.01.2024 under appeal.

¶14

It is also stated that a bare perusal of the statement of injured witness (brother of appellant/ applicant) indicates that on account of some dispute, the altercation took place and appellant/applicant caused one injury to the injured and the statement does not indicate the there was pre-meditation of mind or preparation so as to cause bodily injury which can cause death and further, two injuries were sustained on account of the fact that injured fell down, which can be deduced from the statement of the doctor (PW-5).

¶15

He submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the statement of injured, as also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sivamani v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1581 ; State of M.P. v. Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554; Ratan Singh v. State of M.P., (2009) 12 SCC 585; Section 307 of IPC would not be attracted, accordingly, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Upon due consideration of the facts of the case particularly the the statement of injured and statement of the doctor as also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments referred above and also the age of the applicant, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to suspend the sentence of the appellant/applicant and to grant bail to the appellant/applicant, during the pendency of the present appeal.

¶17

Accordingly, the application is allowed. The sentence imposed

¶18

by the trial court shall remain suspended during pendency of present appeal.

¶19

Let appellant Rambaran @ Langdu be released on bail in S.T. No.474/2023 (State vs. Rambaran alias Langdu), arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.214 of 2022, under Sections 307, 324, 504 I.P.C., registered at Police Station- Subeha, DistrictBarabanki, on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions :-

¶20

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶21

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶22

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶23

(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶24

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.

¶25

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶26

(ix) The appellant/ applicant shall deposit the fine imposed by the trial court within 15 days from his release.

¶27

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass order(s) in accordance with law.

¶28

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.

¶29

Order Date :- 1.4.2024 (Manoj K.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rambaran @ Langdu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rambaran @ Langdu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagauti Prasad Vs the Court of Board of Revenue U.P. Lko. and 5 Others

Shalini Tripathi Vs Naib Tehsildar, Jagdishpur, Tehsil Musafirkhana, Mandal Ayodhya and Others

Smt. Bitana Vs Tehsildar Judicial Bahraich and 2 Others

Saheb Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Suresh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ashish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another