Disposed¶16

Zahid Ali v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2025CRLR/564/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Zahid Ali; State of U.P.; CRIMINAL REVISION No. 564 of 2025; Court No. 82; Section 401 I.P.C.; Case Crime No. 140 of 1993; Criminal Case No. 556A/1993; Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2024; Chief Judicial Magistrate Banda; Sessions Judge Banda; P.S. Kotwali City District Banda; confession-based conviction; discriminatory sentencing between co-accused; parity in sentencing; time-served sentence; interim bail during pendency of revision; judicial custody since 18.10.2024; two sureties and personal bond; order dated 5.4.2025; Rajesh Kumar Singh.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief only: trial court directed to enlarge the revisionist on bail on furnishing two sureties and a personal bond to its satisfaction; trial court record summoned; matter listed for hearing after six months; merits of the revision left open. ¶16

Zahid Ali vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether there is any reasonable basis for discrimination between the accused of the same crime in respect of the sentence awarded - the revisionist having received four years' imprisonment while co-accused facing the same charge received time-served sentences - such that the orders impugned in the criminal revision are patently illegal and cannot be allowed to sustain. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

As a prima facie finding on the arguments advanced, the other co-accused of the crime in question have been awarded much lesser sentence than the sentence awarded to the present revisionist; the matter requires consideration and the merits of the alleged discriminatory sentencing remain open.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The trial court is directed to enlarge the revisionist on bail on furnishing two sureties and a personal bond to its satisfaction.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision against conviction under Section 401 I.P.C. - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Manjive Shukla, J.), Criminal Revision No. 564 of 2025, Zahid Ali v. State of U.P., order dated 5.4.2025. The revision challenged (i) the order dated 18.10.2024 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda in Criminal Case No. 556A/1993 (State of U.P. Vs. Zahid Ali) concerning Case Crime No. 140 of 1993, P.S. Kotwali City, District Banda, whereby the revisionist was convicted under Section 401 I.P.C. on the basis of his confession and sentenced to four years' imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5000/-, and (ii) the order dated 12.12.2024 of the Sessions Judge, Banda dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2024 and upholding the conviction and sentence. Counsel argued that there was no reasonable basis for discrimination between the accused of the same crime in respect of sentence: three co-accused (Pappu Palak, Govind @ Gola, Kallu @ Ram Krishna) who confessed before the trial court for the same charge had been awarded sentences equal to the period already spent in judicial custody. Finding prima facie that the other co-accused had been awarded much lesser sentence than the revisionist, the Court held the matter required consideration, summoned the trial court record, listed the hearing after six months, and directed the trial court to enlarge the revisionist on bail on furnishing two sureties and a personal bond to its satisfaction. Interim order only; the question of alleged discriminatory sentencing remains open.

¶1

Court No. - 82

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 564 of 2025

¶3

Revisionist :- Zahid Ali Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.

¶6

The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banda in Criminal Case No. 556A/1993 ( State of U.P. Vs. Zahid Ali) relating to Case Crime No. 140 of 1993, under Section 401 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali City, District Banda whereby, the revisionist had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 401 I.P.C. on the basis of his confession and he had been sentenced for imprisonment of four years along with fine of Rs. 5000/-.

¶7

The revisionist through this criminal revision has also challenged the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Banda in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2024 (Zahid Ali Vs. State of U.P.) whereby, the Criminal Appeal filed by the revisionist had been dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence had been upheld.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that in Case Crime No. 140 of 1993 registered under Section 401 I.P.C. in Police Station Kotwali City, District Banda, four persons were named as accused i.e. Pappu Palak, Govind @ Gola, Kallu @ Ram Krishna and Zahid Ali (the revisionist), out of them three coaccused persons namely Pappu Palak, Govind @ Gola and Kallu @ Ram Krishna, who were facing trial for the same charge, confessed before the trial court and on the basis of their confession, they had been awarded sentence of the period for which they already remained in judicial custody but for the same charge, in the case of the revisionist, on his confession he had been awarded extreme sentence of imprisonment of four years.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has vehemently

¶10

argued that there is no reasonable basis for discrimination in between the accused of the same crime in respect of the sentence awarded to them as such, the orders impugned in this criminal revision are patently illegal and cannot be allowed to sustain.

¶11

For the purpose of bail, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the revisionist is aged about 65 years and he is in judicial custody since 18.10.2024 therefore, it is in the interest of justice that during pendency of this criminal revision, the revisionist may be enlarged on bail.

¶12

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and prima facie, I find that the other co-accused of the crime in question have been awarded much lesser sentence than the sentence awarded to the present revisionist.

¶13

Matter requires consideration.

¶14

Let record of trial court be summoned.

¶15

List this matter for hearing after six months.

¶16

The trial court is hereby directed to enlarge the revisionist on bail, on furnishing two sureties and a personal bond to its satisfaction.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.4.2025 Gss

¶18

Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Zahid Ali v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zahid Ali 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

Similar cases

Raju Nishad vs State of U.P.

Committee of Management Brahmanand P.G. College Rath (Hamirpur) through Its President-Dr. Indrapal vs Dr. Amit Bharadwaj Director of Education U.P. Higher Education Directorate Sarojini Naidu Marg, Civ

Smt. Vibha Shukla vs Rajeev Kumar Yadav District Inspector of Schools and Another

Dinesh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mangal Alias Prince Kumar Gaumat and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

State of Up vs Lakhan Singh Alias Kallu and Another