Suraj @ Kallu Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgement and order of conviction dated 04.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/FTC-I/Special Judge, Gangster Act, Sultanpur in Session Trial No.451 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.401 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 and 315 IPC and Section ¾ Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur, thereby convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 304-B IPC for ten years rigorous imprisonment; under Section 498-A IPC for two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo imprisonment of two months; under Section 315 IPC for five years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo imprisonment of two months, and under Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act for one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo imprisonment of one month. However, all the sentences shall run concurrently.

¶13

This Court vide order dated 09.12.2025 directed the officer to call for a report from the Superintendent of District Jail, Sultanpur regarding the total period of incarceration of the appellant-Suraj @ Kallu Singh. In pursuance of the said order, Senior Superintendent of Police, District Jail,

¶14

CRLA No. 220 of 2024

¶15

2

¶16

Lucknow has sent the custody report dated 16.12.2025 of the appellant stating therein that appellant has served out the sentence of 5 years, 3 months and 23 days as on 01.12.2024. The applicant was transferred from Sultanpur to Varanasi and again he has served one year in District Jail, Varanasi.

¶17

The sole ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is that appellant has been in jail continuously and he has served out the sentence of six years and four months out of ten years of total sentence. It is further submitted that more than half of the sentence has been served out by the appellant in jail, therefore, the appellant may be enlarged in jail in view of the judgements rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 697 and Dinesh Kumar Sinha Vs. State of Jharkhand through C.B.I., (2009) Crl.L.J. 2994:(2009) AIR SCW 3539.

¶18

Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the fact that appellant has served the sentence of more than half of the total sentence.

¶19

From perusal of the record, it transpires that appeal has been admitted on 29.01.2024 and though the trial court record has been received, but the paper book has not yet been prepared and today more than hundred cases are listed and it is not possible to hear the appeal on merit.

¶20

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case; the argument that appellant has served out the half of the sentence awarded, the argument that case of the appellant is covered by the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Saudan Singh and Dinesh Kumar Sinha (supra); there is no possibility of appeal being heard in near future, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶21

Let appellant Suraj @ Kallu Singh involved in aforesaid session trial be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the condition that during bail, the appellant shall not indulge himself in any criminal activity. If he is found to have indulged in any criminal activity, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of

CRLA No. 220 of 2024

3

bail.

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

¶26

However, realization of fine imposed by the learned trial court is not stayed and the appellant shall deposit the entire fine within a period of two months from the date of his release, failing which, the bail granted to the appellant shall stand cancelled and he shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the remaining sentence as awarded to him.

¶27

Subject to above noted terms, bail application stands allowed.

¶28

Order on Memo of Appeal

¶29

List the appeal in the third week of February, 2026.

¶30

In the meantime, office is directed to prepare the typed paper book in this case within six weeks and provide a copy of the same to learned counsel for the parties as per the Rules of the Court.

¶31

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶32

December 17, 2025

¶33

Rao/-

¶34

Digitally signed by :- CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suraj @ Kallu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj @ Kallu Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow

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

Vikas Prashant Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Prashant Pandey and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Shanti Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Himanshu Singh @ Dheeraj Singh Vs State of U.P. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Ram Nath Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Helix Technology Thru. Its Pro. Priyanka Mishra Vs Special Court N.I. Act Lko.