Banvari Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Court No. - 12

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 67 of 2025

Appellant :- Banvari Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Order on Crl. Misc. Application No. 1 of 2025

¶6

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicantappellant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P.

¶7

The applicant-appellant has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 09.12.2024, passed by Additional Judge, Court No. 1, Unnao in Sessions Trial No. 320 of 2015 - State Vs. Om Prakash and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 1553 of 2014, under Sections 395, 397, 328, 412, 120-B, 436 I.P.C., Police Station - Bangarmau, District - Unnao. Under Section 120-B read with Section 395 IPC, the applicantappellant has been sentenced to ten years imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-, under Section 120-B read with Section 397 IPC for seven years rigorous imprisonment, under Section 120B read with Section 328 I.P.C. for ten years imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/- and under Section 120-B read with Section 436 IPC for ten years imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-, alongwith default stipulations.

¶8

As per prosecution case, the complainant are working as Munshi with Ramji Jwellers, Holi Gate, Mathura which shop is owned by one Mohit Agarwal. On 18.10.2014 at about 6.00 AM the complainant alongwith with Pankaj Agarwal while traveling in Innova Car No. UP 32 ER 2177 and going to Mathura and were carrying 6Kg 408gm gold and Rs.51,00,000/- cash. The said car was being driven by Banwari Lal. When the complainant alongwith his companion crossed Nawabganj Toll Plaza, they were stopped by the accused persons who were ten in number travelling in Borelo Cars and were wearing Police uniform, abducted them and get them unconcious by forcibly administering some intoxicating pills. The accused persons took the gold and cash, misbehaved with the complainants by sticking duct tape on their mouth and tied their hands as feet, but left the driver unharmed. The accused persons fled away in Bolero cars. After some time Police arrived and the present FIR was lodged.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has nothing to do with the said incident and has been falsely implicated in the present case crime. It is submitted that the applicant was merely driving the Innova Car he has no knowledge about the gold and cash being carried by the complainants. He had no acquintance with the accused persons.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has vehemently urged that appellant has been roped in the present case only on the basis of apprehension. Nothing has been recovered from the possession of the appellant and no identification prarade has been conducted in the case. It is next submitted that the statements of the prosecution witnesses is contradictory. it is also submitted that call details were also investigated by the Police but no evidence could be found indicating complicity of the appellant. It is lastly submitted that the appellant has spent seven years and seven months in jail during the trial and one month and twenty five days after conviction, hence he has spent seven years eight months and twenty five days in custody. It is lastly submitted that co-accused of this case namely Montu @ Tarun Bangali, has been already enlarged on bail by this Court by means of order dated 05.03.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2025, and hence the present appellant-applicant may also be enlarged on bail during pendency of present criminal appeal on the ground of parity.

¶11

Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand has opposed the application for bail but does not dispute the above facts as narrated by the counsel for the applicantappellant.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶13

On considering the entire aspects of the matter, it seems that appellant has been implicated on apprehension shown by the complainant. It has also come on record that no recovery has been made from the applicant and that he has spent seven years eight months and twenty five days in custody, coupled with the fact that co-accused of this case namely Montu @ Tarun Bangali has been already enlarged on bail, hence the appellantapplicant has made out a case for bail.

¶14

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant-applicant.

¶15

Let, the applicant-appellant Banvari Lal , convicted in Sessions Trial No. 320 of 2015 - State Vs. Om Prakash and

¶16

Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 1553 of 2014, under Sections 395, 397, 328, 412, 120-B, 436 I.P.C., Police Station - Bangarmau, District - Unnao, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned.

¶17

In case, the fine imposed by the Trial Court has not been deposited by the applicant-appellant, same shall be deposited by him within one month from the date of his release.

¶18

It is made clear that the bail is being granted to the applicant on the condition that the counsel for the appellant shall appear to argue the appeal as and when the appeal is listed. In case of default of the counsel and non-payment of fine as directed above, the bail is likely to be cancelled.

¶19

It is further made clear that in case the applicant/appellant commits any offence while on bail, the prosecution would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

¶20