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

The instant criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. read with section 415 (2) of B.N.S.S. against the impugned judgment and order dated 08.09.2025 & 12.09.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Vahya Nyayalaya Mohammadi, Lakhimpur Kheeri in Session Trial No. 504 of 2015, [State Versus Sharif and others], arising out of case crime no. 446 of 2015 under section 307, 326 & 34 of IPC, Police Station - Mohammadi, District- Lakhimpur, Kheeri, convicting and sentencing the appellants under section 307/34 of IPC for simple imprisonment of 10 years and imposing fine of Rs. 20,000/-, each, in case of default of fine additional imprisonment of 6 months & under section 326/34 of IPC for simple imprisonment of 10 years and imposing fine of Rs. 20,000/-, each, in case of default of fine additional imprisonment of 6 months The appellant, has filed an appeal for suspension of conviction and sentence and also for release on bail.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He was enlarged on bail vide order 06.01.2021 passed by this Court during trial on the Bail Application No.

¶15

CRLA No. 3583 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

8906 of 2020 . However, he has held in jail custody since 12.09.2025 and again he has been convicted and sentenced by learned trial court for the alleged offence. From the statement of P.W.-5 Raj Kishore Yadav which is dealt in para -77 in the impugned judgment, it is obvous that he was arrest on 05.06.2015 alongwith co-accused allegedly at 08.00 p.m. . He submitted that his release from jail during trial he suffered more than 5 years and 6 month imprisonment Thereafter again he has held in jail at present since 12.09.2025. Therefore, the appellant has undergone more than 5 years and 9 months imprisonment against maximum imprisonment of 10 years awarded vide impugned judgment and order. Thus, he deserved to be released on bail in the light of direction of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 25.2.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 308 of 2022 arising out of S.L.P.(Crl) No. 4633 of 2021: Saudan Singh Vs. State of U.P. . He also submitted that as present appeal is new and it will take considerable time to heard and decided.

¶18

Per contra, the learned AGA has opposed the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the appellant and co-accused person Dilshad had assulted the injured due to which he was sufferred serious injuries on his head and hand and one hand become useless and it was cut due to assalut of the accused persons.

¶19

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offenses, nature of allegations, quantum of puishment passed in the impugned order and the fact that the appellant has undergone 5 years and 9 months without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶20

Let the appellant, namely, Dos Mohammad , be released on bail in the aforesaid Sessions Trial number during the pendency of appeal on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶21

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

¶22

The appellant has undertaken not to indulge into any anti-social activity

¶23

CRLA No. 3583 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

particularly against the informant and in the event of any such incident it shall be open to the complainant to make an application for cancellation of bail.

¶26

As regards fine, half of the amount of fine will be deposited by the appellant within a month of his release from jail pursuant to present bail order, the remaining half of the fine shall be stayed during pendency the appeal.

¶27

Order of Appeal

¶28