Disposed

Prakash Soni v. State of Up

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024CRLA/837/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal against conviction and sentence for theft and dishonestly receiving stolen property. The High Court deemed it a fit case for bail during pendency due to heavy pendency and custody period, without deciding merits, directing release on personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail pending appeal on furnishing personal bond and two sureties.

Prakash Soni vs State of Up — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 837 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Prakash Soni Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Harish Chandra Mishra,Pradeep Chauhan,Rajendra Prasad Maury,Saurabh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

Ref:- Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application No. 01 of 2024.

¶6

This Criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the appellant Prakash Soni against the conviction and sentence recorded vide judgment and order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.IV, Chitrakoot in Sessions Trial No. 144 of 2022, arising out of case Crime No. 55 of 2020, under Sections 41/411, 413 I.P.C., Police Station Mau, District Chitrakoot and maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is six years rigorous imprisonment.

¶7

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant-applicant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

By means of the bail application, the appellant-applicant seeks suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

¶9

Prosecution story in brief is that some ornaments were stolen by the accused persons namely, Rishi Dubey and Babuan Dubey alias Sandeep from the house of informant after breaking the lock and the F.I.R. was lodged against them. After investigation, the present appellant and other coaccused Rishi Dubey and Babuwan Dubey alias Sandeep were convicted under Sections 41/411, 413 I.P.C. and were sentenced as mentioned hereinabove.

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellantapplicant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that in the present case, the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the learned trial court only on the basis of insufficient and unreliable evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is also submitted that the present appellant was not named in the F.I.R. It is also submitted that the co-accused Rishi Dubey and Babuan Dubey alias Sandeep had stolen the ornaments from the house of the informant and came to the shop of the appellant namely, Maa Sherawali Ornaments Centre and sold it to the appellant. It is also submitted that appellant is having

¶11

shop of ornaments. The stolen ornaments were sold to the appellant and without having any knowledge that the said ornaments were stolen, the appellant purchased it and paid Rs.7300/- to the co-accused persons. It is next submitted that the appellant was on bail during trial and he has not misused the said liberty. It is next submitted that co-accused persons namely Rishi Dubey and Babuan Dubey have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.05.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 135 of 2024. It is lastly submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 21.12.2023 having no criminal history to his credit and hearing of the appeal may take some time, therefore, appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as mentioned by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶13

After considering the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties as well as considering the unlikelihood of early hearing of appeal due to heavy pendency, punishment awarded and custody period as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for grant of bail during pendency of the appeal. Rest of the other grounds shall be subject matter of final adjudication of this appeal.

¶14

Let the applicant-appellant, Prakash Soni , be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned in Sessions Trial No.144 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No.55 of 2020, under Sections 41/411 and 413 I.P.C., Police Station Mau, District- Chitrakoot.

¶15

As soon as personal bonds and surety bonds are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal.

¶16

Order on Appeal

¶17

List in due course.

¶18

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 Rmk.

¶19

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

Prakash Soni v. State of Up

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Soni 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

Ashu Chaubey vs State of U.P. and Another

Raman Grewal vs State of Up and Another

Deepaka Chaudhary Alias Deepika Chaudhary vs State of Up and 2 Thers

Vipin Yadav @ Vipan vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Rati Sharma vs State of U.P. and Another

Sameer Rastogi vs Smt. Minakshi Rastogi