Allowed¶15

Lalla Mishra v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2025CRLA/493/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Court No. 72; CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 493 of 2025; Lalla Mishra v. State of U.P.; Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.; order dated 12.3.2025; suspension of sentence application allowed pending appeal; conviction under Sections 148, 307/149 I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act; Case Crime No. 388 of 2007, P.S. Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur; Sessions Trial No. 1001 of 2007; custody over one year three months of five-year sentence; bail and surety bonds before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur; no opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Suspension of sentence application allowed; remaining sentence of the applicant-appellant suspended during pendency of the appeal, subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, without any expression of opinion on the merits of the appeal.

Lalla Mishra vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the remaining sentence of the applicant-appellant Lalla Mishra should be suspended during the pendency of Criminal Appeal No. 493 of 2025 against his conviction and sentence.

¶8

Court's answer

Having regard to the protracted trial, non-misuse of the concession of bail, custody of more than one year three months out of the five-year sentence, and the unlikelihood of the appeal maturing for final hearing in the near future, further detention of the applicant would serve no useful purpose and the appeal may be rendered infructuous if the sentence is not suspended.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal, the remaining sentence of the applicant-appellant is suspended, subject to his furnishing the requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur.

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Suspension of sentence — Criminal Appeal No. 493 of 2025 against conviction dated 04.12.2024 and sentence dated 07.12.2024 under Sections 148, 307/149 I.P.C. and Section 27 Arms Act (Sessions Trial No. 1001 of 2007, Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-II, Court No.24, Shahjahanpur) — applicant had undergone more than one year three months of the five-year sentence, faced a protracted trial on regular bail without misusing the concession — appeal not likely to mature for final hearing in the near future and may be rendered infructuous — remaining sentence suspended subject to bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, expressly without any expression of opinion on the merits of the appeal (Manoj Bajaj, J.).

¶1

Court No. - 72

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 493 of 2025

¶3

Appellant :- Lalla Mishra Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Pawankumar Dubey 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, Lalla Mishra has applied for suspension of sentence during pendency of the appeal, arising against the judgment of conviction dated 04.12.2024 and order of sentence dated 07.12.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court-II, Court No.24, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 1001 of 2007, thereby convicting the appellant under Sections 148, 307/149 I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act, followed by imposition of sentence of three years, under Section 148 I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, five years, under section 307/149 I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and three years, under Section 27 Arms Act with fine of Rs.5,000/-, with a further condition that in the event of non deposit of fine, convict shall undergo further imprisonment of three months, six months and three months, respectively.

¶9

The applicant-convict was prosecuted through Case Crime No. 388 of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C. and 27 Arms Act, registered at Police Station Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur.

¶10

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the trial court has overlooked the material discrepancies in the prosecution case while passing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.12.2024. Learned counsel submits that out of the total sentence of five years imposed upon the applicant, a period of more than one year three months has already been undergone by the applicant and in this regard, he has drawn the attention of the Court towards the custody certificate of the applicant issued by Superintendent, District Jail, Shahjahanpur. 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.

¶11

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 04.12.2024 is based upon correct appreciation of material on record. However, it is not disputed by learned A.G.A. that the applicant has already undergone a period of more than one years three months against the total sentence of five years.

¶13

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions, this Court finds that convict faced protracted trial and never misused the concession of bail. That apart, after the judgment of conviction dated 04.12.2024, applicant has been sent in custody to serve the sentence, but in the considered opinion of 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 years three months in custody, out of total awarded sentence of five 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.

¶14

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, Shahjahanpur.

¶15

The application is allowed.

¶16

Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Shiv

¶17

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

Lalla Mishra v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalla Mishra v. State of U.P.

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

Smt Ruchika Yadav vs Manujay Kumar Yadav

Smt. Harshita vs Uddhav Chand

Dilip Kumar Yadav Alias Pappu vs State of U.P.

Alopi Chandra Tripathi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep and 26 Others vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Mohan Lal and Another vs State of U.P.