Krishn Chandra Alias Pujari and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Heard Shri Sooraj Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Shri Ankur Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/informant.

¶14

Admit.

¶15

Let record of the trial court be summoned.

¶16

List this criminal appeal for hearing, in due course.

¶17

(Order on Bail Application)

¶18

The captioned criminal appeal has been filed challenging therein, the judgment and order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Gonda in Sessions Trial Case No. 91 of 2015, State of U.P. Versus Ram Sanware and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 102 of 2013, registered under Sections 147/148, 308/149, 323/149, 325/149, 324/149, 504 & 506 I.P.C., Police Station Khodare, District Gonda, whereby the appellants had been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147/148, 308/149, 323/149,

¶19

CRLA No. 3592 of 2025

¶20

2

¶21

325/149, 324/149, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and had been sentenced for imprisonment of five years along with fine.

¶22

It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the trial court, in the impugned judgment and order dated 29.10.2025, had recorded a finding that it is not possible for the trial court to decide as to which party was aggressor. It has further been contended that without deciding the issue as to who was aggressor, the trial court had convicted and sentenced the appellants for the offences in question.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has argued that it is a matter of cross cases having been lodged by the appellants and from the side of complainant/informant. It has further been argued that in the matters of cross cases, unless the issue, as to which party was aggressor, is decided, there is no occasion for the trial court to pass the order of conviction and sentence.

¶24

It has been informed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the appellants were on bail during trial and they have not misused the liberty of bail.

¶25

It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the final disposal of this criminal appeal is likely to take sometime and appellants are in judicial custody since 29.10.2025, therefore, it is in the interest of justice that the appellants may be enlarged on bail during pendency of this criminal appeal.

¶26

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and Shri Ankur Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/informant have opposed the prayer of the appellants for grant of bail.

¶27

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that in Paragraph-36 of the impugned order, learned trial court had recorded a finding that it is not possible to conclude as to which party, either appellants or the persons from the side of complainant/informant, was aggressor. Once the trial court could not determine, as to which party was aggressor, there was no occasion for the

¶28

CRLA No. 3592 of 2025

¶29

3

¶30

trial court to pass conviction order against the appellants.

¶31

This Court finds that during trial, the appellants were on bail and they have not misused the liberty of bail. This Court further finds that final disposal of this criminal appeal is likely to take sometime and the appellants are in judicial custody since 29.10.2025, therefore, it is in the interest of justice that the appellants may be enlarged on bail during pendency of this criminal appeal.

¶32

Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby direct the trial court/competent court to enlarge the appellants, Krishn Chandra @ Pujari, Rajendra Prasad @ Kakkoo, Ravindra Kumar @ Pandit, Lalmani Verma, Surendra Kumar @ Lalau and Jayntri Prasad @ Bharthoo on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶33

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.

¶34

ii. The appellants/applicants shall cooperate in early disposal of the appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

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.

¶38

(Manjive Shukla,J.)

¶39

November 10, 2025 Satish

¶40

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

Krishn Chandra Alias Pujari and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishn Chandra Alias Pujari and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Lalit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Bhola Singh @ Anuj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Revisionist Is Minor D Thru. His Natural Guardian / Father Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Master X Juvenile Thru. His Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Firoz Alam Thru. His Father Taj Ali (Dablu) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Ram Bahadur Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Transport Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others