Ram Murat Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Court No. - 27

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2009 of 2025

Appellant :- Ram Murat Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Anuuj Taandon Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

(Order on Appeal)

¶6

Admit.

¶7

Issue notice to respondent no.2.

¶8

As prayed, steps be taken within a week.

¶9

Summon the lower court record.

¶10

List in the week commencing 04.08.2025.

¶11

Office is directed to submit the service report by the next date of listing.

¶12

(Order on I.A. No. Nil of 2025)

¶13

This is an application for stay of execution of sentence and conviction

¶14

Issue notice to respondent no. 2.

¶15

As prayed, a week's time is granted for taking steps.

¶16

Office is directed to submit the service report by the next date of listing.

¶17

Order on bail application (C.M. Application No. Nil of 2025)

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant along with two other co-accused persons have falsely been implicated in the present case for taking illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- by each person named in the FIR. The other two persons have already approached this Court by filing Criminal Appeal Nos. 1872 of 2025 & 1873 of 2025 titled as 'Ved Pal Singh vs. State of U.P.' and 'Govind Singh vs. State of U.P.' respectively, in which bail has been granted by this Court on the same date i.e. 02.07.2025. The copy of the bail orders have been produced during the

¶20

course of argument which are taken on record. For convenience, one of the bail order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1872 of 2025 is quoted herein below:-

¶21

" Order on Appeal

¶22

Heard.

¶23

Admit.

¶24

Summon the lower court record.

¶25

Steps within a week.

¶26

List after receipt of the lower court record.

¶27

Order of bail application (C.M. Application No.01 of 2025)

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the case. There is material contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses as P.W.4 has specifically denied that no gratification was taken before him and Mohd. Hasan who appeared as P.W 3 and only on the testimony of P.W.3, the conviction has been made and there was no recovery also, whereas he was a professional witness and it was pointed out before the trial court but the trial court failed to consider it. He further submits that the appellant was on bail during trial and never misused the liberty of bail. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 7 PC Act read with 120 B IPC and 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) PC Act 1988 and maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is 3 years,therefore, he has also been enlarged on interim bail by the sessions court by means of the order dated 09.06.2025. There is no other criminal history of the appellant. He further submits that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail during pendency of the appeal, he will not misuse the liberty granted by this Court and shall assist the Court in expeditious disposal of the appeal. Thus learned counsel for the appellants prays for release of the appellants on bail.

¶30

Learned A.G.A. though opposes the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant but could not contradict the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶31

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail during pendency of the appeal as he was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty granted by the trial court and there is no other criminal history of the appellant and he has been awarded a maximum sentence of 3 years and nothing could be pointed out in regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant at this stage regarding contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses subject to the condition that the appellant shall ensure assistance in the court in early disposal of the appeal.

¶32

Let the appellant/applicant namely Ved Pal Singh convicted and sentenced in Sessions Case No.25/2006 arising out of Case Crime No.112/2006, under Sections 7 PC Act read with 120 B IPC and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) PC Act 1988, Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶33

(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 appellant/applicant within 30 days of actual release of the appellant/applicant from prison.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39

The realization of half of the fine awarded to the appellant shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal.

¶40

The appellants would be entitled to get the benefit of this order only after deposit of 50% of amount of fine and subject to the deposit of fine, the execution of sentence shall remain suspended."

¶41

It is further submitted that the case of the appellant/applicant is similar to the other two convicted persons to whom the bail has already been granted and the present appellant/applicant is entitled for the parity of the same.

¶42

It is further submitted that during the pendency of the trial, the applicant was on bail and after the conviction order, he is on interim bail.

¶43

It is further submitted that there is no criminal history against the present appellant/applicant and he will not misuse the liberty of bail granted by this Court and shall assist the court in expeditious disposal of the appeal and prays for release of the appellant on bail.

¶44

Learned A.G.A. though opposes the prayer of learned counsel for the appellant/applicant but could not contradict the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant/applicant as well as parity of the bail orders passed in the case of Ved Pal Singh and Govind Singh.

¶45

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail during pendency of the appeal as he was on bail during trial and he has not misused the liberty granted by the trial court and there is no other criminal history of the appellant and he has been awarded a maximum sentence of 3 years and nothing could be pointed out in regard to the

¶46

submissions of learned counsel for the appellant at this stage regarding contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses subject to the condition that the appellant shall ensure assistance in the court in early disposal of the appeal.

¶47

Let the appellant/applicant namely Ram Murat Yadav, convicted and sentenced in Sessions Case No.25/2006 arising out of Case Crime No.112/2006, under Sections 7 PC Act read with 120 B IPC and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) PC Act 1988, Police Station Kotwali, District Kanpur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶48

(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 appellant/applicant within 30 days of actual release of the appellant/applicant from prison.

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

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

¶53

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.

¶54

The realization of half of the fine awarded to the appellant shall remain stayed during pendency of the appeal.

¶55

The appellants would be entitled to get the benefit of this order only after deposit of 50% of amount of fine and subject to the deposit of fine, the execution of sentence shall remain suspended.

¶56

Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Nitesh

¶57

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

Ram Murat Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Murat Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. and Another

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

Similar cases

Smt. Nagma Nausheen vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Lko. Thru. Managing Director and 2 Others

Kuldeep Kumar vs U.P. State Warehousing Corporation Head Office Thru. Managing Director and 2 Others

Sharwan Kumar vs Chairperson Institute of Tool Room Training U.P. and Spl. Secy., Insti. Deve. Deptt. and Others

Manoj Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shyam Charan Srivastava and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Dulari and Another vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.