Vinod Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P.

Court No. - 76

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 544 of 2025

Appellant :- Vinod Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Krishna Kumar Singh,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶5

In Re: Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the applicantsconvicts is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicants-convicts and the learned A.G.A. for the State on suspension of sentence.

¶8

The applicants-convicts- Vinod Kumar, Jawahar Lal and Smt. Gayatri Devi, have been convicted under sections 304(2)/34 IPC in Sessions Trial No.203 of 2007, titled State v. Vinod Kumar & two others, arising out of Case Crime No.538 of 2006, under Sections 304/34, 323/34, 504 & 506 IPC, Police Station Buxa, District Jaunpur, and awarded maximum sentence of four years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/-.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants-convicts submits that the applicants-convicts have been falsely implicated in the present case. There was no incriminating material on record to establish the guilt of the applicants-convicts, but the trial court has erroneously convicted the applicants-convicts. There are contradictions in the prosecution witnesses' statements and the prosecution story as well. The applicants were on bail during trial and have not misused the liberty of bail. It is further urged that the applicants-convicts are suffering with old age diseases, and have been languishing in jail since 4.1.2025 post-conviction, and

¶10

further, the hearing of appeal may take a sufficiently long time. Therefore, the applicants- convicts are requested to be enlarged on bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for the grant of bail but could not dispute the factual submissions advanced on behalf of the applicants- convicts.

¶12

Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants-convicts and carefully examining the material available on record, this Court, prima-facie, notes significant contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. Additionally, the applicants' criminal antecedents have been considered, along with their advanced age. Given these factors, the Court finds it appropriate to grant indulgence to the applicants-convicts by suspending the sentence till the pendency of the appeal.

¶13

Furthermore, the appeal against the conviction from the year 2025 is unlikely to be heard in the near future. Keeping the applicants incarcerated in such circumstances would serve no meaningful purpose. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the applicants have violated any bail conditions during the trial.

¶14

The purpose of furnishing a surety is to ensure the presence of an accused during the trial against a specific set of charges levelled by the prosecution or, in the case of a convict, to ensure the presence of the convict during the pendency of the appeal. In both situations, if a person has secured bail but is unable to furnish two sureties or fulfill other conditions, resulting in his continued detention in jail, this would infringe upon the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, despite having a bail order in his favour. The Supreme Court, in the case of Ramchandra

¶15

Thangappan Aachari v. State of Maharashtra reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2629, held that such a situation would constitute a travesty of justice. Therefore, the practice of invariably requiring two sureties in every case should be discontinued in view of the evolving jurisprudence on this subject.

¶16

Thus, the applicants-convicts - Vinod Kumar, Jawahar Lal, & Smt. Gayatri Devi, be released on bail in the above case on furnishing personal bonds and ONE surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned, subject to furnishing an undertaking that they will cooperate in the hearing of the appeal.

¶17

The applicants-convicts shall deposit a fine after six weeks of their release.

¶18

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

¶19

Order on appeal

¶20

List this appeal for final hearing in due course.

¶21

The observations made hereinabove in suspending the sentence shall not affect the final outcome of the appeal, which shall be decided on its own merits based on the evidence and arguments advanced by both parties.

¶22

Order Date :- 18.3.2025 Anil K. Sharma

¶23

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶24

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

Vinod Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar and 2 Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rashid vs State of U.P.

Gaurav Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Harsh Mishra vs State of Up and 3 Others

Lalla Mishra vs State of U.P.

Pramod Srivastava vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mr Narendra Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another