Anand vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

The captioned criminal appeal has been filed challenging therein, the judgment and order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (P.C. Act- II) / Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 247 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 53 of 2012 registered under Sections 308 & 506 I.P.C. in Police Station - Itaunja, District - Lucknow whereby, the appellant had been convicted of the offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. and had been sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of six years along with fine.

¶13

It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the P.W.-7, who claims himself to be brother of the injured and an eye witness of the incident in question, had stated before the trial court that he, his injured brother and his father were going to their house from their fields on 09.03.2012 at about 01:00 P.M., when the incident in question took place. It has further been contended that testimony of the father of the injured is altogether different to that of the testimony of the P.W.-7, as father in his testimony had stated that he reached on the place of occurrence after the incident, on being informed by the villagers.

¶14

CRLA No. 3142 of 2024

¶15

2

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that the P.W.-7, who claims himself to be eye witness of the crime in question, had said that the accused had assaulted the injured with a weapon namely " Karchulle ", whereas injured in his testimony had stated that the accused assaulted him with a weapon namely " Farasa ". Learned counsel for the appellant has thus argued that looking into the aforesaid variation in the testimony of the eye witnesses, it appears that the trial court has not considered the evidence available before it in its true perspective and straightaway had convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C..

¶17

It has been pointed out that during trial, the appellant was on bail and has not misused the liberty of bail. It has further been pointed out that the appellant is in incarceration since 05.09.2024.

¶18

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of appellant for grant of bail.

¶19

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and I find that there are serious contradictions in the testimony of the P.W.-7, injured and father of the injured. I further find that during trial, the appellant was on bail and has not misused the liberty of bail.

¶20

This court also finds that the appellant is in judicial custody since 05.09.2024 and final disposal of this criminal appeal is likely to take sometime, therefore, it is in the interest of justice that during pendency of this criminal appeal, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby direct the trial court / competent court to enlarge the appellant, namely, Anand on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶22

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

¶23

CRLA No. 3142 of 2024

¶24

3

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

Memo of Appeal

¶30

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

¶31

November 3, 2025 Lokesh Kumar

¶32

(Manjive Shukla,J.)

¶33

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

Anand v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lallan Nishad @ Lallan Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Kaushalendra Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Anuraj Kashyap @ Bugga vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Deepak Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Mujibul Husain vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayti Raj Deptt. Lko. and 6 Others

Parmeshwar and Another vs Up Sanchalak Chakbandi Adhikari, Lakhimpur Khiri