Bhukhan and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

A prayer for bail has been made by the appellants in this criminal appeal, which has been filed against the judgement and orders dated 12.09.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/F.T.C., Unnao in Session Trial No.388/2017 arising out of Crime No.33/2016, under Section 60(2) Excise Act, Police Station-Safipur, District-Unnao.

¶18

The submissions of learned counsel for the appellants/applicants is that the appellants are innocent persons and have been falsely been implicated in the case.

¶19

It is stated that trial court while convicting the appellants/applicants has not appreciated the evidence available on record in its true spirit. It is further stated that testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 has been considered by the trial court for the purposes of convicting the appellant/applicant though their testimony was not reliable on account of various discrepancies in their statement(s).

¶20

It is further stated that a perusal of the judgment of conviction would indicate that appellants/applicants were not previously convicted and therefore the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short 'Act of 1958'), ought to have been provided

¶21

CRLA No. 3285 of 2025

¶22

2

¶23

to the appellants/applicants and therefore, the trial court in not granting the benefit of the Act of 1958, is committed error in law and fact both.

¶24

It is further stated that taking note of the period of sentence awarded, the trial court has already enlarged the appellants/applicants on interim bail.

¶25

It is further stated that appellants were on bail during trial and they have not misused the said liberty and the possibility of final hearing in the instant appeal in near future is bleak.

¶26

In these circumstances, the appellants/applicants are entitled for bail. In case of being enlarged on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in disposal of present appeal.

¶27

Learned Counsel for the side opposite has opposed the prayer for grant of bail.

¶28

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for parties, material available on record as well as totality of fact and circumstances as also submission of counsel for the applicant/appellant to the effect that while on bail, the applicant would not commit any crime/offence and would co-operate in the disposal of the appeal as also the submissions related to judgment under appeal and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicants/appellants are entitled to be released on bail till the outcome of the instant appeal.

¶29

Accordingly, the application for bail is allowed. The sentence imposed by the trial court shall remain suspended during pendency of present appeal, qua the present applicants/appellant.

¶30

Let the applicant-appellants, namely, Bhukhan and Setha involved in aforesaid sessions trial be released on bail subject to payment of complete fine within 15 days from the date of his release and on furnishing his personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to following conditions;

¶31

(i) The appellants-applicants will cooperate in the disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment.

¶32

(ii) The appellants-applicants will not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶33

As soon as personal bonds 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.

¶34

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

¶35

October 13, 2025 Jyoti/-

¶36

Digitally signed by :- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bhukhan and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhukhan and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Similar cases

Shakeel Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Puttilal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Nihal Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Sayyada Khatoon vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 7 Others

Anand Prakash Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Baby Ayansha Chaturvedi Thru. Her Mother Smt. Nandini Chaturvedi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others