Prema @ Srimati vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko.

The captioned criminal appeal has been filed assailing therein, the judgment and order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 276 of 2004, State Vs. Kallu & Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 299 of 2002 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 304, 308, 323, 324, 504, 506, 336 I.P.C. in Police Station - Maal, District - Lucknow, whereby, the appellant had been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 304, 308, 323, 324, 504, 506, 336 I.P.C. and had been sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of ten years.

¶14

It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the testimony of the witnesses recorded before the Trial Court is not trustworthy as, the prosecution witnesses in their testimony had assigned different weapons in the hand of the appellant at the time of occurrence of the incident. It has further been contended that once different weapons have been assigned by the witnesses to the appellant then the entire prosecution story and the judgment rendered by the Trial Court comes under a cloud.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that once there is

¶16

CRLA No. 1155 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

variance in the statements of the witnesses with regard to weapon of appellant and her role in the crime, she could not have been convicted. It has further been submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the appellant in the crime in question and only on the basis of general role, she had been convicted for the offences in question.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that under identical circumstances, this Court vide order dated 10.10.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1073 of 2025 had granted bail to co-convict i.e. Smt. Kailasha. It has also been submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody since 25.03.2025 and during trial she was on bail and has not misused the liberty of bail. It has further been submitted that the final disposal of this criminal appeal is likely to take some time, therefore, it is in the interest of justice that the appellant may be enlarged on bail during pendency of this criminal appeal.

¶20

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant for grant of bail but could not justify that when the witnesses have assigned different weapons to the appellant then how she could have been convicted.

¶21

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and I find that the prosecution witnesses have assigned different weapons in the hand of appellant, Prema @ Srimati. Since, there is variance in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, therefore, there was hardly any occasion for the Trial Court to convict the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 304, 308, 323, 324, 504, 506, 336 I.P.C.. I also find that the appellant has not been assigned any specific role and the conviction is based only on general role assigned, and also, the appellant is in judicial custody since 25.03.2025 and during trial she was on bail and has not misused the liberty of bail. I further find that the final disposal of this criminal appeal is likely to take some time therefore, it is in the fitness of things that the appellant may be enlarged on bail during pendency of the criminal appeal.

¶22

Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled for being enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the Trial Court / competent court is hereby directed to enlarge

¶23

CRLA No. 1155 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

the appellant, namely, Prema @ Srimati, on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶26

(i) The fine, imposed by the trial court, shall be deposited by the applicant/appellant within a period of one month from his actual release from prison, if the same is not earlier deposited.

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

Memo of Appeal

¶32

List/Put up this criminal appeal for hearing in due course.

¶33

(Manjive Shukla,J.)

¶34

October 10, 2025 Lokesh Kumar

¶35

Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prema @ Srimati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prema @ Srimati v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hanuman Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Ugrasen Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Saud and Anothers vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Babban and 2 Others vs U.O.I. (D.R.I.) Thru. Its Director Mahanagar Lko.

Smt. Rajiya Bano ( Raziya Bano) and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home District Lko. and Another

Piyush Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another