Allowed

Ramsaran and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Allahabad HC29 May 2024CRLA/1755/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. during the pendency of a criminal appeal against conviction under IPC Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, and 149. The court suspended the trial court sentence and granted bail to the appellants, citing lack of misuse of earlier bail and proximity to appeal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Sentence suspended during pendency of appeal; appellants released on bail on personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties each.

Ramsaran and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1755 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Ramsaran And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Ana Fatma,Mohd. Salman,Mukhtar Ahamad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

(On Appeal)

¶6

Heard Ms. Ana Fatma, learned counsel for the appellantss, and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

Admit.

¶8

Summon the trial court record.

¶9

List/put up after receipt of trial Court record for final disposal.

¶10

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

¶11

This application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. has been moved in the instant criminal appeal arising out of Sessions Trial No. 443 of 2015 relating to Case Crime No. 1016 of 2008, under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 325/149 I.P.C., P.S. Shivratan Ganj, District - Amethi for suspension of sentence and enlarging the appellants on bail who are already on bail in terms of the order of trial Court dated 17.05.2024 passed in terms of Section 389(3) Cr.P.C. after taking note of the punishment and sentence awarded by the trial Court.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the appellants while pressing the bail application submitted that before the trial Court, according to the injured Kanakram (P.W.3), who caused the injury to this witness is not clear as before the trial Court, it is also stated that who caused the injury I am not aware of it.

¶13

She also submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.3 injured witnesses have implicated the appellants in the case only on account property dispute and the property dispute is apparent from the statement of injured witnesses namely P.W.1/Ram Niranjan and P.W.2/Mithlesh.

¶14

She also submitted that as per P.W.5/Dr. Sayyid Altaf Hussain, who examined the injured P.W.1/Ram Niranjan, stated that the head injury could be caused if someone falls on hard and blunt surface. He also stated that this injury can be caused by hard and blunt object.

¶15

She also submitted that the trial Court, while convicting the appellants, blindly relied upon the statement of the injured witnesses of the fact produced by the prosecution and has not dealt with the defense taken by the appellants in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. in its true spirit wherein the appellants stated that all the injuries are manipulated only for the purpose of implication of the appellants to resolve the property dispute between the parties.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that 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-applicants was on bail during the course of trial.

¶17

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 this liberty was not misused as also the facts indicated above and that the final hearing in this appeal in near future is bleak, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to suspend the sentence against the applicants/appellants and to grant bail to the applicants/appellants till the outcome of the instant appeal.

¶18

Accordingly, the application is allowed . The sentence imposed by

¶19

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

¶20

Let the applicants-appellants, namely, Ramsaran S/o Ramdeen, Anarkali W/o Ramdeen and Shiv Shanker S/o Ramdutt involved in Sessions Trial No. 443 of 2015 (supra) be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to following conditions:

¶21

(i) Fine imposed by the trial Court shall be deposited with the trial court by the appellants within one month from their actual release from prison, if the same has not been earlier deposited.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

Order Date :- 29.5.2024

¶27

Mohit Singh/-

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramsaran and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsaran and 2 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Naresh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko.

Nigam Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Sushma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Harish Kumar Dwivedi and 4 Others vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Mishrilal vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Atul Kumar @ Atul Verma vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another