Gaya Prasad @ Amar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

The captioned criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing therein, the judgment and order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Faizabad/Ayodhya in Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2014, State Vs. Ratipal & others; arising out of Case Crime No. 141 of 2013 registered under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 308/149, 304/149 and 504 I.P.C. in Police Station - Mawai, District - Ayodhya whereby, the appellant had been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323/149, 308 Part-II/149, 304 PartII/149 & 504 I.P.C. and had been sentenced for rigorous imprisonment of ten years along with fine.

¶14

It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the eye witnesses, in their testimony recorded before the trial court, had categorically stated that the accused, Ramsurat & Ratipal, had caused serious injury on the head of the father of the informant and therefore, there was no occasion for the trial court to convict the appellant under Sections 308 Part-II/149 and 304 Part-II/149 of the I.P.C.. It has also been contended on behalf of the appellant that the informant himself, in his testimony recorded before the trial court, had categorically stated that due to old enmity between the

¶15

CRLA No. 3976 of 2024

¶16

2

¶17

parties, he had falsely implicated Gaya Prasad @ Amar Singh, Deshraj, Kamakhyadeen, Ghanshyam and Ratipal, in the case in question.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that once, it is apparent from the testimony available on record, that the appellant has not caused any serious injury to the victim and deceased and further, informant himself had stated that he had falsely implicated certain persons in the criminal case for the reason of old enmity, there was no occasion for the trial court to convict the appellant for the offences in question and to sentence him for rigorous imprisonment of ten years.

¶19

It has been submitted the appellant was on bail during trial and has not misused the liberty of bail. It has further been submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody since 30.10.2024 and since, final disposal of this criminal appeal is likely to take sometime therefore, it is in the interest of justice that the appellant may be enlarged on bail during pendency of this criminal appeal.

¶20

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

¶21

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and I find that it is quite apparent from perusal of the testimony of the eye witnesses recorded before the trial court that the accused, Ramsurat and Ratipal, had caused serious injury on the head of the deceased and not the appellant. I further find that the informant himself, in his testimony recorded before the trial court, had categorically stated that on account of old enmity between the parties, he had falsely implicated Gaya Prasad @ Amar Singh, Deshraj, Kamakhyadeen, Ghanshyam and Ratipal, in the case in question, therefore, there was no occasion for the trial court to convict the appellant and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 10 years.

¶22

This Court finds that the appellant was on bail during trial and has not misused the liberty of bail. This Court further finds that the appellant is in judicial custody since 30.10.2024 and final disposal of this criminal appeal is likely to take sometime, as old criminal appeals are being listed before this Court for hearing therefore, it is in the interest of justice that

¶23

CRLA No. 3976 of 2024

¶24

3

¶25

the appellant may be enlarged on bail during pendency of this criminal appeal.

¶26

Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby direct the trial court / competent court to enlarge the appellant, Gaya Prasad @ Amar Singh 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:-

¶27

(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.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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 record.

¶32

Order on Memo of Appeal

¶33

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

¶34

November 12, 2025 Lokesh Kumar

¶35

(Manjive Shukla,J.)

¶36

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

Gaya Prasad @ Amar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaya Prasad @ Amar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dinesh Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Ranjeet Alias Chhotey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Pankaj and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Rakesh Lodhi @ Rakesh Kaliya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Subhash Chandra and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.