Allowed

Harindr v. State of Up

Allahabad HC3 Sept 2024CRLA/2042/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeals against conviction under Sections 395/397 IPC were pending. The appellants sought suspension of sentence and bail. The Court, noting no misuse of prior bail, the pendency of the appeal, and cross-case circumstances, released the appellants on bail with suspension of sentence execution.

What did the court decide?

Appellants released on bail on furnishing personal bond and sureties; execution of sentence suspended pending appeal.

Harindr vs State of Up — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2042 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Harindra Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Qazi Vakil Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Connected with

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2045 of 2024

¶6

Appellant :- Jaleshwar Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Qazi Vakil Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶8

These Criminal appeals under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code have been preferred by the appellants Harindra and Jaleshwar against the conviction and sentence recorded vide judgment and order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Deoria in Sessions Trial No. 341 of 1999, arising out of case Crime No. 07A of 1995, under Sections 395 read with Section 397 I.P.C., Police Station Khampar, present Police Station Srirampur, District Deoria by which the appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 395 read with Section 397 I.P.C. for ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-each alongwith default sentence.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellants-applicants as well as the learned AGA for the State.

¶10

By means of the bail application, the appellants-applicants seek suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

¶11

The prosecution story in brief is that the accused persons 58 in numbers on account of some animosity came to the house of informant on 18.01.1995 at about 7.00 A.M. carrying lathi, danda, farsa and raising slogan of I.P.F. Jindabad and started pelting stones and tried to break the door of house and several persons received injuries. In defence fire was made by the informant's side as well and some persons from the opposite side also sustained injuries. Robbery was also committed by the assailants. The matter was reported to the police and after initiation of prosecution, the accused persons including the present appellants were convicted under Section 395 readwith Section 397 I.P.C. and were sentenced as

¶12

mentioned hereinabove.

¶13

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellantsapplicants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case due to old animosity. It is further submitted that the prosecution story is baseless and unnatural. The learned trial court has recorded the conviction of the appellants on the basis of unreliable and inconsistent evidence adduced by prosecution.

¶14

It is also submitted that although several witnesses have been adduced by the prosecution but the entire oral testimony is concocted. It is next submitted that medical evidence does not support the prosecution version as claimed. It is also submitted that although there are several injured persons in this case but none of them has sustained any grievous injury. It is also submitted that the present matter is a cross case wherein Case Crime No. 7 of 1995, under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149 I.P.C. was also registered against the informant's side wherein after investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the first informant namely Munna alias Ajay Kumar was also convicted for life imprisonment in Session Trial No. 09 of 1998 (State Vs. Munna @ Ajay Kumar and others) aforesaid. It is also submitted that the prosecution has not come with clean hands and several material issues have been suppressed by prosecution. It is also submitted that PW-12, PW-18 and PW19, the alleged eye witnesses do not support the prosecution version. It is also submitted that it was not plausible that the informant or his associates recognized all the accused persons who were several in number and their names were also disclosed to the police. It is also submitted that in this matter no one sustained injuries in such a number or of such a nature as the prosecution alleges because the assault was made upon the informant and his associates by the crowd. It is also submitted that the appellants were on bail during trial and they have not misused the liberty of bail. It is further submitted that the applicants-appellants are languishing ion jail since 12.02.2024 having no criminal history in their credit and hearing of the appeal may take some time, therefore, applicants-appellants may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶16

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned judgment.

¶17

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence awarded to the appellants and considering the fact

¶18

that they were on bail during trial but no instance of misuse of the bail has been brought to the notice of the Court, the factum of cross case and the fact that hearing of the appeal may take some time for its final disposal, without further commenting on the merits of the case, I am inclined to release the appellants on bail.

¶19

Let the above named accused-appellants Harindra and Jaleshwar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned.

¶20

On acceptance of bail bond and personal bonds, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record.

¶21

However, during pendency of the appeal, the execution of sentence/order appealed against the accused appellants shall remain suspended and amount, as imposed by the trial Court, shall be deposited by the accused-appellants within a period of one month from the date of release.

¶22

Order on appeal

¶23

Admit.

¶24

Office is directed to prepare the paper books and list both the appeals for hearing in due course.

¶25

Order Date :- 3.9.2024 Rmk.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Harindr v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harindr v. State of Up

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

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Alias Kumar Sambhav and 3 Other vs State of U.P. and Another

Usman Khan and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Aaqil Alias Aqil vs State of Up and Another

Naushad vs State of U.P. and Another

Chhotu vs State of U.P. and Another