Disposed

Imrat and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2024CRLA/2387/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 2387 of 2024, the Allahabad High Court, a Single Bench, delivered a Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application. The court granted bail to four appellants convicted of Section 304 Part II/34 IPC and Section 323/34 IPC, ordering a personal bond with sureties and directing the deposit of half the imposed fine within one month.

What did the court decide?

Release of appellants on bail with a personal bond of Rs. 70,000 and two sureties; mandatory deposit of half the fine within one month; coercive action for non-compliance.

Imrat and 3 Others vs State of U.P. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2387 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Imrat And 3 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi,Shyamli Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶5

Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No. 01 of 2024.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (Essential Commodities Act), Lalitpur in S.T. No.592 of 2020, relating to Case Crime No.14 of 2020, under Section 304 Part II/34 IPC, Section 323/34 IPC. Appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo 6 years simple imprisonment and a fined of Rs.10,000/- and for charge under Section 323/34 IPC one years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.

¶8

The pleadings have already been exchanged between the parties. According to prosecution version the accused appellants attacked Sambhu Dayal who was husband of the informant Sheela by lathi, axe in concerted manner on 22.05.2020 around 05:00 pm, when he was moved by motorcycle and when his son Surendra came to rescue him they also assaulted him and suffered injuries. Injured Prabhu Dayal died on the spot, before arrival of the police.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellants argued for bail of the appellants in present appeal, there are indicated certain contradictions in statements of witnesses of facts. He further submitted that appellants have been enlarged on bail during trial, and they have never misused the liberty of bail granted to them. The appellants are assigned similar role in the offence ,and it has not surfaced in evidence that who is the author of vital blow on deceased.The injuries of injured Surendra are found simple in his medico legal examination. The appellants belonged to same family and they are held in jail custody at present since 28.02.2024. The maximum sentence awarded to them is 6 years imprisonment and fine. The

¶10

disposal of the appeal is likely to take some further time due to huge docket of cases in the Court. Appellants have not been assigned any prior criminal history, they undertake to co-operate in early disposal of appeal and is ready to abide by the conditions of bail.

¶11

He lastly submitted that as per postmortem report the appellants three ante mortem injuries were found, in which two injuries were found on non-vital part of the body and only one injury was found on head, which is in the nature of abrasion. However, on internal examination subarachnoid hemorrhage was detected, which might have been cause of death. The cause of death was shock and hemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries. Some accused are said to have been armed with axe, but no injury of sharp edge weapon has been found in postmortem.

¶12

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail application and submitted that the offence is of serious nature, in which injured Prabhu Dayal died due to assault.

¶13

Considered the rival submissions of the parties, and the nature of offence the quantum of punishment and sentence awarded in the impugned order, the general role having been assigned to all the accused appellants and in the postmortem report no injuries of sharp edged weapon having been found, without specifying any criminal case. The disposal of the appeal is likely to take some further time due to huge docket of cases in the Court, without further commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to release the appellants on bail.

¶14

Let appellants, Imrat, Pran Singh @ Manjhle, Daddu @ Mulayam, Sahab Singh @ Gopal , convicted and sentenced in the above case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 70,000/- (Seventy Thousand) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to furnishing undertaking that he will co-operate in the hearing of the appeal.

¶15

Half of the fine imposed shall be deposited within one month after release and remaining fine shall remain stayed, and in case of failure in depositing the amount of fine within the stipulated period, the trial court will take coercive action against the appellants.

¶16

On acceptance of bail bonds, the lower court shall transmit photostat/scanned copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the

¶17

record of this appeal.

¶18

Order on appeal.

¶19

List this appeal for final hearing in its due course. Order Date :- 20.8.2024 Ashish/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Imrat and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imrat and 3 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bheemsen @ Bheema vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Tripathi vs State of U.P.

Alam vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gautam vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Singh Alias Lalu Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another