Guddu @ Jaisram and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1319 of 2024

¶3

Guddu @ Jaisram And Another

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sachin Srivastava, Dhananjay Kumar Singh, Manoj Kumar Singh, Naveen Kumar Singh, Piyush Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 27

¶9

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State – respondent and perused the record.

¶11

Instant criminal appeal under section 374 (2) CrPC has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11/12.03.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Shrawasti in Sessions Trial No.100070 of 2013, State versus Parashuram and Others, arising out of Case Crime no.96 of 2013, police station – Malihipur, District Shrawasti, whreby convicting and sentencing the appellants in following manner :-

¶12

i.Under section 304/34 IPC to undergo 8 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-; in default of payment of fine, 6 months additional imprisonment;

¶13

ii.Under Section 323/34 IPC to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine, 1 month additional imprisonment.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per the prosecution version the incident occurred on 20.01.2013 at 07:00 PM due to some dispute and accused persons started abusing the informant, Jhothu and when objected to this, they assaulted him with lathi and danda. On hearing his scream, his brother, Sadhu Ram and

¶15

CRLA No. 1319 of 2024

¶16

2

¶17

son Balak Ram came to rescue him, but accused persons also assaulted them with lathi and danda, due to which his son Balakram suffered serious injury and became unconscious. The informant and his brother had brought him to the police station, but he subsequently died during treatment at the hospital on the next day.

¶18

He submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. They have been enlarged on bail during the trial and there is no allegation against them regarding misuse of the liberty of bail. They have been held in jail custody since 11.03.2024 and keeping in view their detention during the trial, they have undergone more than 2 years imprisonment.

¶19

He next submitted that appellants have been convicted for charges under section 304/34 IPC and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. Co-accused Parashuram and Kashiram who have been assigned similar role in the offence have already been released on bail by orders of this Court dated 29.01.2026 on the ground of the old age. For reasons of old age co-accused were awarded sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment. The deceased suffered single injury which proved fatal and neither any FIR nor in any evidence of witness it is specified that who is author of the said head injury no.1 of the deceased which proved fatal. Deceased also suffered two injuries on non vital parts and one injury on head in the form of contusion 5 cm x 2.5 cm. No dangerous weapon was used in the offence. According to the prosecution version incident occurred in spur of moment. Appellants were enlarged on bail during trial and there is no allegation against them regarding misuse of liberty of bail. Appeal is not likely to be heard in near future due to huge backlog.

¶20

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and also submitted that while granting bail to co accused persons the old age was also considered. Offence is of serious nature, however, does not dispute other contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant which are based on record.

¶21

Considering the rival submission of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, nature of injuries of victim deceased and totality of facts and circumstances of the case, quantum of period undergone

¶22

CRLA No. 1319 of 2024

¶23

3

¶24

by the appellant which is more than two years imprisonment during trial and after conviction and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case in my opinion the case of bail is made out.

¶25

Let the appellants namely, Guddu alias Jaisram and Bhagoley be released on bail in the aforesaid Sessions Trial number during the pendency of appeal upon their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶26

The appellants have undertaken not to indulge into any anti social activity particularly against the informant and in the event of any such incident it shall be open to the complainant to make an application for cancellation of bail.

¶27

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

¶28

As regards fine, the amount of fine awarded by the trial court is not stayed.

¶29

Order on Appeal

¶30

List the appeal for hearing in due course.

¶31

February 25, 2026 mks

¶32

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Guddu @ Jaisram and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu @ Jaisram and Another 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

Omkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Sachin Kumar @ Sachin Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Poonam Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Chandrakesh Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and 2 Others

Shudhanshu Upadhayay vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Intijar Ahmad @ Bablu and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another