Allowed

Ram Jatan Kol v. State of U.P. through Its Secretary (Department of Home)

Allahabad HC1 Apr 2025CRLA/3504/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Conviction under Sections 304(ii) and 201 IPC with seven years' imprisonment was under challenge in appeal. Considering parity with co-convicts whose sentences were suspended, over one year four months custody undergone against seven years' sentence, and that the appeal would not mature soon, the High Court suspended the remaining sentence subject to bail bonds.

What did the court decide?

Remaining sentence of the appellant-applicant suspended subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of CJM, Chitrakoot.

Ram Jatan Kol vs State of U.P. through Its Secretary… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3504 of 2025

¶3

Appellant :- Ram Jatan Kol Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Its Secretary (Department Of Home) Counsel for Appellant :- Pradeep Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶5

(Order on appeal)

¶6

List this appeal in due course.

¶7

(Order on Suspension of Sentence Application)

¶8

Applicant-Appellant, namely, Ram Jatan Kol has applied for suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal, arising against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2024 passed by Session Judge, Chitrakoot in Sessions Case No. No.382 of 2022, titled State of U.P. Vs. Babbu @ Rampal Vishwakarma and others, thereby convicting the appellant under Sections 304(ii), 201 I.P.C., followed by imposition of sentence of seven years imprisonment U/s 304(ii) IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-, two years imprisonment U/s 201 IPC with fine of Rs.2,000/- with further condition that in the event of non- deposit of fine(s), convict shall undergo further imprisonment of one month and fifteen days, respectively.

¶9

The applicant-convict was prosecuted through Case Crime No.17 of 2022, under Sections 302/34, 201, 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station- Bargarh, District- Chitrakoot.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the trial court has overlooked the material discrepancies in the prosecution case

¶11

while passing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 29.08.2024. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the prosecution has set up a common case against all the three accused persons and the case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. He submits that the sentence imposed upon the other co- convicts has already been suspended by this Court vide order dated 3.4.2025, therefore on parity, he prays for suspension of sentence of the applicant. Learned counsel submits that out of the total sentence of seven years imposed upon the applicant, a period of more than one year four months has already been undergone by the applicant and in this regard, he has produced the photostat copy of custody certificate of the applicant issued by Superintendent, District Jail, Chitrakoot. According to learned counsel, during trial, the applicant-accused was extended the concession of regular bail, who stood the trial and never misused the concession. Learned counsel submits that the appeal is likely to succeed on the basis of the grounds pleaded and prays for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal.

¶12

While opposing the above prayer, learned A.G.A. has argued that the prosecution adduced convincing evidence to bring home the guilt of the convict and the judgment of conviction dated 29.08.2024 is based upon correct appreciation of material on record. However, learned A.G.A. does not dispute the period undergone by the applicant.

¶13

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that convict stood the trial and never misused the concession of bail. That apart, after the judgment of conviction dated 29.08.2024, applicant has been sent in custody to serve the sentence, but in the considered opinion of

¶14

this Court, the appeal is not likely to get mature for final hearing in near future. Applicant has already undergone a period of more than one year four months in custody out of total awarded sentence of seven years. Therefore, further detention of the applicant behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose, and in case, the sentence is not suspended, the appeal may be rendered infructuous.

¶15

Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the appeal, the remaining sentence of the applicantappellant is suspended, subject to his furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitrakoot .

¶16

The application is allowed.

¶17

Order Date :- 16.5.2025

¶18

Raj

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Jatan Kol v. State of U.P. through Its Secretary (Department of Home)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Jatan Kol v. State of U.P. through Its Secretary (Department of Home)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Narayan Singh vs Rahul Gupta, Tehsildar, Tehsil Madhuban District Mau

Rishiraj Singh vs Sri Rakesh Kumar, District Inspector of Schools

Shri Ram vs Sri Rakesh Kumar, District Inspector of Schools

President / Chairman Nagar Panchayat Dohri Ghat District Mau vs Suresh Yadav and 3 Others

Ravindra Dheemar vs State of U.P.

Neeraj vs State of U.P.