Allowed

Maniram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC18 Jun 2024CRLA/1899/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by a convict in a criminal appeal against a P.O.C.S.O. court judgment. Noting he was on bail during trial and on interim bail after conviction without misuse, the High Court allowed bail with a personal bond and two sureties and stayed the fine imposed by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with two like sureties; trial court's fine stayed during pendency of appeal.

Maniram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1899 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Maniram Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Dhananjay Trivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

(Order on Appeal)

¶6

Heard.

¶7

Admit.

¶8

Summon the trial court record.

¶9

List after receipt of trial court record for order/final hearing.

¶10

(Order on C.M.A./01/2024)

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶12

A prayer for bail has been made by the appellant in this criminal appeal, which has been filed against the judgement and order dated 23.05.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (P.O.C.S.O.), Court No.14, Sitapur in S.S.T. No. 157 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 211 of 2015 under Section 354 I.P.C., Police Station- Rampur Mathura, District- Sitapur.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that during trial, appellant was on bail and he did not misuse the liberty of bail, and after conviction, he was enlarged on interim bail. He further submits that trial court failed to appreciate the evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses in the correct prospective. He further submits that there is no possibility of conclusion of the appeal in near future, hence, the appellant is entitled for regular bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer for bail, but he does not dispute the fact that during trial, the appellant was on bail and after conviction, he has been enlarged on interim bail.

¶15

Having heard the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A and perused the material

¶16

brought on record including the interim bail granted to the appellant by the trial court, this Court is of the view that appellant is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of criminal appeal before this Court.

¶17

Hence, prima facie, case for bail is made out, at this stage.

¶18

Accordingly, the application for bail is allowed .

¶19

Let the appellant- Maniram involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(i) Fine imposed by the trial Court shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

Order Date :- 18.6.2024 Arpan

¶26

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

Maniram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maniram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Ashok Kumar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Lko

Mohammad Imran vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Mahesh Kumar and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

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

Sunil and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home

Ajay Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another