Partly allowed

Kaushlendra Nath Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2024CRLR/1350/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC, the court admitted the petition and granted bail to the 85-year-old convicted revisionist pending final hearing, requiring a personal bond and co-operation in the trial proceedings, while staying the realisation of the remaining 50% of the fine.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties; stay on realisation of remaining 50% of fine imposed at trial.

Kaushlendra Nath Dubey vs State of U.P. and… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1350 of 2024

¶3

Revisionist :- Kaushlendra Nath Dubey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Abhishek Kumar Saroj,Akash Mishra,Nagendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶5

Order on memo of revision.

¶6

The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and conviction order dated 29.2.2024 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Etawah in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2021 (Kaushlendra Nath Dubey Versus State of U.P.) as well as the order dated 31.3.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etawah in Criminal Case No. 124 of 2014 (State Versus Kaushlendra Nath Dubey), arising out of Case Crime No. 133 of 2007, under Sections-420, 467, 468, 471/465 IPC, P. S.-Civil Lines, District Etawah, whereby the criminal appeal preferred against the judgment and order dated 31.3.2021, has been dismissed affirming the judgement and order dated 31.3.2021.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.

¶8

By the impugned order of learned trial court, the revisionist has been convicted for charge under Sections-420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and sentenced to seven years' simple imprisonment and fine to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- has been imposed.

¶9

Admit.

¶10

Issue notice to respondent No.2, returnable at an early date through CJM concerned.

¶11

Let this revision be listed for final hearing in its due course.

¶12

Order on Bail Application.

¶13

Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that as per prosecution version, the accused was posted in Provincial Section, Public Works Department at district-Etawah as a ClassIV employee. His initial appointment was made on 10.7.1995. At the time of appointment he filed documentary evidence and affidavit and projected his date of birth as 1.3.1947, whereas subsequently this fact came into notice that his actual date of birth was 21.7.1939 and said date of birth was verified from Karmchethra Inter College, Etawah from where he has received education upto High School. He was subsequently removed from service vide order dated 31.8.2003 passed by Executive Engineer and the said order was made effective since 21.7.1999. He was under suspension at the time of his removal. He next submitted that in the impugned judgement dated 31.3.2021 itself, there is recital that he is around eighty two years of age, thus, according to the date of birth relied upon by the prosecution itself, he is eighty two years of age. He has also submitted that he is held in custody in jail for the last about eight months i. e. 29.2.2024 after dismissal of his appeal by the Court of Sessions, Etawah. Laslly has submitted that taking into consideration the previous custody of the revisionist, total period of custody comes to more than eight months and the fact that there is no likelihood of early hearing of the revision, the revisionist may kindly be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Per contra learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail indicating the seriousness of the offence. However, he did not dispute the fact that the revisionist is eighty five years of age and also the period of custody as contended.

¶15

Considering the rival submissions made by the parties and nature of offence and the quantum of punishment awarded and the fact that revision is not likely to be decided early, due to

¶16

pendency of backlog cases and without further commenting on the merits of the case this Court deems it fit to enlarge the accused-revisionists on bail during the pendency of this revision.

¶17

Let revisionist, Kaushlendra Nath Dubey, convicted and sentenced in the above case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to furnishing undertaking that they will co-operate in the hearing of the revision.

¶18

Subject to revisionist's depositing 50% of the total fine imposed by the trial Court within one month from the date of his release, realization of remaining 50% amount shall remain stayed during the pendency of this revision.

¶19

Order Date :- 17.10.2024

¶20

¶21

Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kaushlendra Nath Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushlendra Nath Dubey v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Chitharoo Prasad @ Chitharoo @ Samujh vs State of Up and Another

Surendra Nath Saxena Alias Sn Saxena vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Solanki @ Akhilesh Solanki and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Nath Saxena Alias Sn Saxena vs State of U.P. and Another

Shiv Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another