Prabhu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

The captioned criminal appeal has been filed assailing therein, the judgment and order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 276 of 2004, arising out of Case Crime No. 299 of 2002 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 304, 308, 323, 324, 504, 506, 336 I.P.C. in Police Station - Maal, District - Lucknow, whereby, the appellant had been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 304, 308, 323, 324, 504, 506, 336 I.P.C. and had been sentenced for ten years of imprisonment.

¶14

It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the testimony of the witnesses recorded before the Trial Court is not trustworthy as, PW2 i.e. the Informant, Gaj Raj, in his evidence recorded before the Trial Court had submitted that the Kailasha was having brick in her hand, PW3, Smt. Piyara wife of Dhanau, in her evidence recorded before the trial court had stated that Kailasha was having 'Baanka' in her hand and the PW1, Sarvan Kumar, in his evidence before the Trial Court had stated that Kailasha was having 'Ballam' in her hand. PW1, Sarvan Kumar, has stated in his evidence that Kailasha and Prabhu assaulted his father by lathi on his forehead. Kallu and his mother were altercating. His father was brutally assaulted by the accused persons due to which he received injuries, his condition was serious. He was rushed to hospital but he died on the way. There was enmity of partition between both sides. PW3, Smt. Piyara, has stated that Prabhu was having ballam and tamancha in his hand. On the death of Dhanau, the father of the informant, charge under Section 304 IPC was added vide G.D. report dated 08.12.2016. No specific role has been assigned to the appellant that he had caused fatal blow to the deceased. The appellant and co-accused Kailasha and Smt. Prema @ Srimati, were convicted by the trial court by the impugned judgment and order. They were enlarged on bail during trial and there is no allegation

¶15

CRLA No. 1216 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

against them regarding misuse of liberty of bail. He next submitted that the appellant is held in jail custody since 25.03.2025. The final disposal of the criminal appeal is likely to take some time; therefore, in the interest of justice, the appellant may be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the criminal appeal. He also submitted that co-accused Prema @ Srimati and Smt. Kailasha, who are assigned similar roles in the offence, are already enlarged on bail in their respective criminal appeals vide order dated 10.10.2025, passed by this Court.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that once there is variance in the statements of the witnesses with regard to weapon attributed to the appellant and his role in the crime, he could not have been convicted for alleged offence. It has been submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody since 25.03.2025 and during trial he was on bail and has not misused the liberty of bail. It has further been submitted that the final disposal of this criminal appeal is likely to take some time, therefore, it is in the interest of justice that the appellant may be enlarged on bail during pendency of this criminal appeal. Co-accused Kallu died during trial and three accused persons are convicted and sentenced.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant for grant of bail but could not clarify that why the witnesses have assigned variance in the description of weapons attributed to the co-accused and the appellant. Deceased suffered six injuries, out of which one incised wound was found on occipital region of head. Cause of death in post-mortem report is shown as ante-mortem head injury, one injury was on forehead in the nature of lacerated wound.

¶20

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and I find that PW1, Sarvan Kumar, PW2, Gaj Raj and PW3, Smt. Piyara have assigned different weapons in the hands of the appellant and co-accused. There is variance in the testimony of the aforesaid three witnesses regarding mode and manner of assault. I also find that the appellant is in judicial custody since 25.03.2025 and during trial he was on bail and has not misused liberty of bail. I further find that the final disposal of this criminal appeal is likely to take some time therefore, it is in the fitness of things that the appellant may be enlarged on bail during pendency of the criminal appeal.

¶21

Having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled for being enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the Trial Court / competent court is hereby directed to enlarge the appellant, namely, Prabhu , on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶22

(i) The amount of 50% fine as awarded by the trial court is stayed and rest of the amount of 50% fine shall be deposited with the trial court by the appellant on his release from prison pursuant to present appeal, if the same has not been earlier deposited.

¶23

CRLA No. 1216 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

On acceptance of the bail bonds and the personal bond, the court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.

¶29

(Order on Appeal)

¶30

List/ Put up this criminal appeal for hearing in due course.

¶31

January 8, 2026 Mohd. Sharif

¶32

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prabhu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. 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

U.P. Pollution Control Board, Lucknow Thru. Member Secretary vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 6 Others

Utsav Singh @ Lucky Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sharath Chandrasekhar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rangnath Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Gyanchand vs Union of India Thru. Intelligee Officer N.C.B. Lucknow

Satish Chandra Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another