Allowed

Ramdhari Chauhan and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Apr 2024CRLA/1200/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application moved during the pendency of a criminal appeal arising from convictions under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. The Court suspended the sentences of the appellants pending the appeal outcome.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed and sentence suspended pending the outcome of the appeal; fine of Rs. 25,000 and personal bond required.

Ramdhari Chauhan and Another vs State of U.P… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1200 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Ramdhari Chauhan And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Mani Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

(On Appeal)

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Admit.

¶8

Summon the trial court record.

¶9

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

¶10

This application for bail has been moved in the instant criminal appeal arising out of Sessions Trial No. 198 of 2015 relating to Case Crime No. 140 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3-4 of DP Act, P.S. Jaitpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶11

Learned Counsel for the appellants while pressing the bail application submitted that the appellants are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the instant case. He further submitted that the appellant No. 1 is cousin fatherin-law (Chachia Sasur) and appellant No. 2 is cousin mother-in-law (Chachia Sas) of the deceased and they were/are living separately in the vicinity i.e. Village- Dinkarpur (Paabhipur), P.S.- Katka, District- Ambedkar Nagar and to prove the said fact before the trial court, the copy of the pariwar register was filed, which was/is on record as paper No. 33Ba/1 to Paper No. 33Ba/2 and to support this aspect of the case, one witness namely Aditya Pandey (DW-2) was also examined, who in specific terms stated before the trial court that the appellants were living separately, however, the trial court while convicting the appellants, has not recorded any reasons after considering the evidence on record in its true spirit, as such, the appellants, who are having no criminal history expect this judgment of conviction against them and were bailed out during trial, are entitled to be released on bail after suspending sentence awarded by the trial court.

¶12

He also stated that the appellants being 'Chachia Sas and Sasur' were/are not the beneficiary in any manner, as such, the case setup before the trial court against the appellants by the informant/prosecution is not in consonance with the law on the issue.

¶13

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that

¶14

the court below has passed the impugned order after considering the evidence placed before it at the time of trial and there is no illegality in the same. However, he does not dispute the fact that appellants were on bail during the course of trial and they were/are living separately.

¶15

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants-applicants, learned A.G.A. and the judgment of the trial court as also the fact that appellants were on bail during trial and they never misused the liberty as also the fact that the final hearing in this appeal in near future is bleak and the fact the appellants were/are living separately and were/are not the beneficiary and the findings of the trial court in this regard, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to suspend the sentence of the applicants/appellants and to grant bail to them till the outcome of the instant appeal.

¶16

Accordingly, the aforesaid bail application is allowed . The sentence imposed by the trial court shall remain suspended during pendency of present appeal of the present applicants/appellants.

¶17

Let the applicants-appellants, namely, Ramdhari Chauhan and Smt. Sheelawati involved in aforesaid Case Crime Number be released on bail on depositing the amount of fine and furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to following conditions:

¶18

(i) The appellants-applicants shall cooperate in the disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment.

¶19

(ii) The appellants-applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶20

As soon as personal bonds and sureties are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the trial court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶22

Order Date :- 12.4.2024

¶23

Arun/-

¶24

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

Ramdhari Chauhan and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramdhari Chauhan and Another 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nikhil vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Satyendra Kumar Yadav @ Pappu and 4 Others vs Smt. Anuj Kumari and Another

Abdul Raheem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. and Another

Guru Prasad Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vaibhav Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Gopal Srivastava @ Gopal Lala @ Surya Prakash Srivastava and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another