Allowed

Kallu Rawat and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2024CRLA/798/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Convicted appellants sought bail pending appeal from conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC based on circumstantial evidence. Noting hostile recovery witnesses and undetermined blood origin in the forensic report, the court allowed bail with conditions without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Appellants released on bail on personal bond with two sureties; 50% of trial-court fine stayed subject to deposit of 50% within 30 days of release.

Kallu Rawat and Another vs State of U.P… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 9

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 798 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Kallu Rawat And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶5

(Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.1 of 2024)

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellants/applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This bail application has been moved by the appellants/applicants namely Kallu Rawat and Yaduraj Rawat , who are convict of Sessions Trial No.304 of 2012 (State Vs. Kallu Rawat and another), arising out of Case Crime No.1351 of 2011, Police Station Loni Katra, District Barabanki and they have been convicted under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and sentenced for maximum term of life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. with fine stipulation(s), vide judgment and order dated 03.02.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Barabanki praying to release them on bail, during pendency of instant appeal.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants submits that the trial court has committed manifest illegality in appreciating the evidence available on record and has convicted the appellants on the basis of insufficient evidence.

¶9

It is further submitted that case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances, which were placed to prove the crime, were comprising of the confessional statement of the appellants made while they were in the custody of police and the recovery of bloodstained axe (kulhari), 'peteekot', 'shwal' and ' chappal' of the deceased as well as the bloodstained clothes of the appellants and the recovery was stated to have been affected in presence of two prosecution witnesses namely P.W.-1 Dhanpat and P.W.-3 Raju, however, the independent witnesses of the recovery namely P.W.-1 Dhanpat and P.W.-3 Raju have not proved the fact that the recovery has been made in their presence and thus the only evidence, which was available in support of the recovery of the above-mentioned articles, were of the investigating officer himself.

¶10

It is vehemently submitted that the articles, which are shown to have been recovered on the pointing of the appellants, were allegedly sent for forensic examination, however, the origin of the blood has not been determined and it could not be ascertained as to whether the blood found on these articles was of a human being.

¶11

It is also submitted that it was the obligation of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, however, the circumstances, which have been placed against the appellants, were disintegrated and the cumulative affect of these circumstances could never be that the appellants have committed the offence. The appellants/applicants were on bail during the course of the trial and there is no instance of misusing the liberty granted to them by the court and there is no apprehension that the appellants/applicants after release on bail may flee from the process of law or will not cooperate in early disposal of the appeal or in any way will misuse the liberty of bail granted by this Court and they undertake that they will remain present before this Court and will cooperate in early disposal of the appeal. They are in jail after being convicted since 03.02.2024.

¶12

Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer for bail of the appellants/applicants on the ground that no illegality has been committed by the trial court in convicting the appellants/applicants and therefore, they are not entitled to be released on bail, however, he could not confront the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants/applicants that during the trial the appellants/applicants were on bail.

¶13

Considering the fact that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, the two prosecution witnesses, before whom the recovery of incriminating articles are shown to have been affected namely P.W.-1 Dhanpat and P.W.-3 Raju, have become hostile and the origin of the blood has also not been determined in the forensic lab report, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are of the considered view that the appellants/applicants have made out a case of bail. The bail application of the appellants/applicants is allowed . However, this prima facie view will have no impact on the final decision of the appeal.

¶14

Let the appellants/applicants namely Kallu Rawat and Yaduraj Rawat involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶15

(i) 50% of the fine imposed by the trial court shall remain stayed on the condition that 50% of the fine so imposed by the trial Court shall be deposited by the appellants/applicants within 30 days of actual release of the appellants/applicants from prison.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

The trial court is directed to transmit the photo copies of personal bond and bond of sureties filed by the appellants/applicants to this Court at the earliest.

¶20

Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the case.

¶21

13. Let this appeal be listed for hearing on 17.12.2024.

¶22

Order Date :- 5.11.2024 Anupam S/-

¶23

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

Kallu Rawat and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kallu Rawat and Another 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

Qadeer Ahmad and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

C/M of Shia College Thru. Member (Former) Raja Mohd. Sajjad Saheb and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Higher Education U.P. Shasan Lko. and Others

Nirpendra Alias Jhinku and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Raja Saini vs Hindustan Pertoleum Corp. Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director, Mumbai and 2 Others

Ram Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Ram Prakash and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Others