Maula and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Maula and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail application allowed: appellants (Maula and Mohd. Rehan Khan) to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the criminal appeal on furnishing two sureties and a personal bond each, subject to the stated conditions (deposit of trial-court fine within one month of actual release; cooperation in early appeal disposal without unnecessary adjournments; no criminal activity after release; breach constituting ground for cancellation); appeal itself to be listed for hearing in due course.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants (Maula and Mohd. Rehan Khan), convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Barabanki on 17.07.2025, are entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 2316 of 2025. +1 more

Court's answer

Considering the overall facts and circumstances, this Court holds that the appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of this criminal appeal.

Ratio / Principle

The Court directs the trial court/competent court to enlarge the appellants (Maula and Mohd. Rehan Khan) on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing two sureties and a personal bond each to its satisfaction.

Key takeaways

Bail condition (i): the fine imposed by the trial court shall be deposited by the appellants within one month of their actual release from prison, if not already deposited.ratio¶¶23
Bail condition (ii): the appellants shall cooperate in early disposal of the appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournments.ratio¶¶27
Bail condition (iii): the appellants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal No. 2316 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench) – Order on Bail Application, Single Judge: Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J. (decision dated October 30, 2025). Maula and Mohd. Rehan Khan, convicted on 17.07.2025 by the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Barabanki in Sessions Trial No. 701 of 2011 (State of U.P. v. Mohd. Rehan Khan and others), arising out of Case Crime No. C-18 of 2011, P.S.-Badosarai, District-Barabanki, under Sections 354, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(XI) S.C./S.T. Act, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of seven years with fine, sought release on bail during the pendency of this appeal. Counsel argued that Section 354 I.P.C. caps the sentence at three years and, as the victim bore no apparent injury, there was no occasion for imposing the maximum seven-year sentence under Section 452 I.P.C.; the appellants had not misused bail during trial and were in judicial custody since 17.07.2025. The Additional Government Advocate and counsel for Opposite Party No.2 opposed the prayer. Finding the appellants entitled to enlargement on bail, the Single Judge directed the trial court/competent court to enlarge them on two sureties and a personal bond each, imposing conditions: (i) deposit of the imposed fine within one month of actual release if not earlier deposited; (ii) cooperation in early disposal of the appeal without unnecessary adjournments; (iii) no criminal activity after release — breach of any condition being ground for cancellation of bail; photocopies of accepted bonds to be transmitted to this Court. Appeal ordered to be listed for hearing in due course. No monetary quantum of the imposed fine is stated in the judgment.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2316 of 2025

Maula And Another

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Virendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 27

HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

(Order on Bail Application)

Heard Shri Virendra Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Ms. Shraddha Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.2.

The captioned criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging therein, the judgment and order dated 17.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T/ Act) Barabanki in Sessions Trial No.701 of 2011, State of U.P. Vs. Mohd. Rehan Khan and others , arising out of Case Crime No.C-18 of 2011, registered under Sections 354, 452, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(XI) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Badosarai, District-Barabanki, whereby the appellants had been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(XI) S.C./S.T. Act and had been sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of seven years with fine.

It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that maximum sentence provided for the offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. is three years and since the victim has not suffered any apparent injury, therefore, there was no occasion for the trial court to award maximum sentence for the offence punishable under Section

CRLA No. 2316 of 2025

2

452 I.P.C. to the appellants.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that during trial the appellants were on bail and they have not misused the liberty of bail. It has further been submitted that the appellants are in judicial custody since 17.07.2025 and final disposal of this criminal appeal is likely to take some time, therefore, it is in the interest of justice that the appellants may be enlarged on bail during pendency of this criminal appeal.

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Ms. Shraddha Rastogi, learned counsel appearing for the complainant have opposed the prayer of the appellants for the grant of bail.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 354 I.P.C. has been provided as imprisonment of three years. I further find that the victim has not suffered any apparent injury, therefore, there was no occasion for the trial court to award maximum sentence for the offence punishable under Section 452 I.P.C. i.e. imprisonment of seven years to the appellants.

Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of this criminal appeal.

Accordingly, I hereby direct the trial court/competent court to enlarge the appellants (Maula and Mohd. Rehan Khan) on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing two sureties and a personal bond each to its satisfaction with the following conditions:-

i. The fine imposed by the trial court shall be deposited by the appellants/applicants within a period of one month from their actual release from prison, if the same is not earlier deposited.

ii. The appellants/applicants shall cooperate in early

CRLA No. 2316 of 2025

3

disposal of the appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

iii. The appellants/applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

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

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

(Order on Appeal)

List this criminal appear for hearing in due course.

(Manjive Shukla,J.)

October 30, 2025

akhilesh/-

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