Krishna Kumar @ Ram Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Court No. - 28

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 585 of 2024

Appellant :- Krishna Kumar @ Ram Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. Counsel for Appellant : - Smt. Pramila D. Misra,Dharmendra Kumar Trivedi,Naveen Kumar Pandey,Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶5

(Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1/2024: First Bail Application)

¶6

Heard Sri Dharmendra Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application has been moved by the appellantapplicant/ Krishna Kumar @ Ram Prasad, who is convict of Session Trial No. 85/2018 (State Vs. Raj Kumar @ Kalu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. C14/2004, under Sections 307/34, 325/34, 323/34 I.P.C., Police Station Wazeerganj, District Gonda and sentenced for ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/- under Section 307/34 I.P.C., for three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 325/34 I.P.C. and for one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- under Section 323/34 I.P.C with default stipulation vide judgment and order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Gonda, praying to release him on bail, during pendency of instant appeal.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/applicant that in F.I.R. there is role of exhortation assigned to the appellant but before the trial court PW-1 and PW-2 have assigned the role of assault to him. He has further submitted the in F.I.R. it is clear that the complainant has stated that on the exhortation made by the appellant, the other two accused persons, Raj Kumar and Shiv Kumar assaulted with spade and iron rod. He has further submitted that the witness have improved their version before the trial court, just to implead the appellant and to give seriousness to the case against the appellant/applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant/applicant is in jail since 14.02.2024 i.e. more than one year and five months have passed and he was also in jail for some period during the trial. It is further argued that he has no

¶10

criminal antecedents. The appellant was on bail during course of trial which was never misused by him. There is no likelihood of this appeal to be heard at an early date or in near future in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the court.

¶11

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. argued that PW-1 and PW2 have categorically stated before the court that the appellant assaulted the injured, therefore, he is not entitled for the bail.

¶12

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case that the in F.I.R. there is role of exhortation assigned against the appellant but before the trial court PW-1 and PW-2 have assigned the role of assault to the appellant and the appellant’s case is distinguishable to the other two accused persons and considering the fact that there is no likelihood of this appeal to be heard at an early date or in near future in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the court, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, I am of the considered view that the present appellant/applicant is deserved to be enlarged on bail.

¶13

In view thereof, the bail application is allowed.

¶14

Let the appellant/applicant- Krishna Kumar @ Ram Prasad convicted and sentenced in Session Trial No. 85/2018 (State Vs. Raj Kumar @ Kalu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. C14/2004, under Sections 307/34, 325/34, 323/34 I.P.C., Police Station Wazeerganj, District Gonda be released on bail during the pendency of this appeal on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions :-

¶15

(i) The appellant/ applicant shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking any adjournment.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Half of the fine imposed by the trial court is stayed and the remaining half shall be deposited by the applicant within two months from his release on bail.

¶19

It is made clear that this Court has, however, not made any observation on the merits of the appeal.

¶20

As soon as personal bond and sureties are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the trial court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal.

¶21

(Order on memo of appeal)

¶22

List this matter after four weeks for hearing.

¶23

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Arvind

¶25

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

Krishna Kumar @ Ram Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

Krishna Kumar @ Ram Prasad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dheeraj Kumar Sinha and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Batoley @ Mata Prasad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Akash Sonker vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Vijnesh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Amit Vikram @ Sonu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and 5 Others

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