Smt. Nandrani and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

The instant bail application has been moved by the appellants-applicants, who are convicted vide Judgment and Order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (E.C. Act), Barabanki in Session Trial No.9519 of 2014 (State versus Sone Lal and others), arising out of Case Crime No.404 of 2013, under Sections 308, 304, 325, 323 (read with Section 149), 147, 504, 506 of IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Barabanki, and sentenced for maximum term of 7 years for rigorous imprisonment pertaining to Section 304 IPC, sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment pertaining to Section 308, sentence of 2 years imprisonment pertaining to Sections 147, 504 and 506, sentence of 1 year imprisonment pertaining to Section 323, with fine stipulation.

¶14

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants-applicants that the appellant-applicant no.1 is about 75 years of age and is suffering with high blood pressure and acute arthritis. He further submitted that the appellantapplicant no.2 is about 70 years of age and appellant-applicant no.3 is about 60 years of age. He added that the statement of the Doctor is evident that the deceased may have received injuries on falling of a chappar. He further submitted that the statement of the PW-8 i.e. the witness of panchayatnama, is evident that he has signed on panchayatnama on the instance of the police and his statement was not recorded. He submits that the learned trial court

¶15

CRLA No. 1944 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

has erred to consider the certain discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses, which demolishes the story of the prosecution and he added that the appellants-applicants are more than 60 years to 75 years of age and, therefore, the ratio of judgment in case of Anil Ari versus State of West Bengal reported in (2009) 11 SCC 363 is applicable.

¶18

In addition, he argued that the appellants-applicants were on bail during trial and they never misused the liberty of bail. Further submission is that appellants-applicants are in jail since 13.06.2025 and they undertakes that they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will always cooperate with the proceedings of appeal. Thus, submission is that the appellants-applicants may be enlarged on bail.

¶19

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid.

¶20

Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the appellants-applicants are more than 60 years to 75 years of age and the appellant-applicant no.1 about 75 years of age is suffering with high blood pressure and acute arthritis. The statement of the Doctor is evident that the deceased could have received injuries after a chappar could fall over them and the statement of the PW-8 i.e. the witness of panchayatnama is that he has signed on panchayatnama on the instance of the police and his statement was not recorded. The learned trial court has erred to consider the certain discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses, which demolishes the story of the prosecution. The appellants-applicants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail. Further, they have undertaken that they will cooperate with the proceeding of appeal and they are in jail since 13.06.2025. Thus, this Court finds that it is a fit case for grant of bail.

¶21

In result, the bail application of the appellants-applicants is allowed .

¶22

Let the appellants-applicants - 1. Smt. Nandrani, 2. Sitaram & 3. Sone Lal , involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶23

(i) The amount of 50% fine as awarded by the trial court is stayed and rest of the amount of 50% fine shall be deposited with the trial court by the appellants-applicants within one month from their actual release from prison,

¶24

CRLA No. 1944 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

if the same has not been earlier deposited.

¶27

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

¶28

(iii) The appellants-applicants 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.