Satish Kumar Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. to Home Deptt. Lko.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the first informant on bail application pending in appeal and perused the record.

¶13

The instant criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C./ 415(2) BNSS has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 04-11-2025 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge Barabanki hereby convicting, and sentencing the appellant under section 308/34 IPC by seven years R.I. with fine Rs. 5000/- in default one month more imprisonment u/s 323/34 IPC by one year with fine Rs. 1000/- in default one month more additional imprisonment and u/s 452 IPC by three year imprisonment with fine Rs. 5000/- in default one month more additional imprisonment and U/s 504 IPC by six month imprisonment with fine Rs. 1000/- in default 15 days additional imprisonment and u/s 506 IPC by one year imprisonment with fine Rs. 1000/- in default 15 days additional imprisonment and it was also directed to run the aforesaid imprisonment concurrently in S.T. No.1485/2023 Crime No. 303/2021 under Sections 323, 308, 504, 506, 452 IPC, P.S. Masauli District- Barabanki.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, according to the prosecution' version, the informant had come back to home on 5/12/2021 at around 11:00 PM after attending an invitation in another village. The

¶15

CRLA No. 3964 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

appellant and co-accused persons who are his neighbour, trespassed into his house and without any cause, they abused and assaulted him with a lathi and danda. Hearing the informant scream, his younger brother, Ram Naresh, nephew Arvind, and Brijesh rushed to rescue him whereupon, on call of accused Vipin Maurya, other accused persons came and assaulted the informant, his brother, and nephew. His brother, Ramnaresh Maurya, nephew Arvind, and Brijesh sustained serious injuries.

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that a cross-case was also lodged vide case crime number 208 of 2022 at the police station concerned on 16/5/2022 at the instance of accused Vipin Maurya against the informant and the witnesses of the present case, under sections 34, 452, 504, 506, and 392 IPC, in which the date of the incident is shown as 6/12/2021 and the time is 12:30 A.M. whereas the filing of the present case is shown as 11:30 PM on 5/12/2021. Thus, both incidents occurred late at night on 5/6.12.2021. The cross-case lodged at the instance of the accused person is antecedent in time to the present case. The cross-case was registered on the basis of an order passed by the learned magistrate on the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C, filed by the appellantVipin Kumar Maurya. In the said case, Satish Kumar Maurya and Vipin Kumar Maurya had also sustained substantial injuries which is coroborated from the injury report dated 08.12.2021 at 11:50 A.M. and the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on the accused side. The complainant side of the case is charge-sheeted in the said cross-case, which is pending before the trial court.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that in view of the cross-case lodged by the parties against each other. Both cases should have been tried together to ascertain which side was the aggressor. He also submitted that the injuries of Vijay Kumar Maurya, alias Bablu were found to be simple in nature. In the medico-legal examination report and in the X-ray report/ CT scan report, the head injury of Ramnaresh Maurya was found to be serious in nature and the frontal skull bone were found fractured. The doctor found his injury report to be of serious nature in the supplementary report dated 15/12/2021.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant was

¶21

CRLA No. 3964 of 2025

¶22

3

¶23

enlarged on bail and he did not misuse the liberty of bail. The appellant has been held in jail custody since 4/11/2025. He was also incarcerated during the trial before the release of bail. He has not signed any prior criminal history. The appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future due to a heavy backlog.

¶24

Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate and the learned counsel for the first informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that out of three injured persons, two injured persons, Ramnaresh Maurya and Arjun Maurya sustained head injuries. The X-ray report/ CT scan report indicated that the head injury of the injured Ramnaresh Maurya was serious in nature and there was a fracture in the frontal bone. The medico legal examination report and the X-ray report have been proved by the doctor concerned. In the supplementary report, PW-7, Dr. Kuwar Sarvendra Singh has opined that the injuries were not dangerous to life.

¶25

Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the nature of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, the quantum of the sentence awarded to the appellant, the period of custody of the appellant, the factum of cross set up by the appellant's side in which two accused persons in the present case are injured and the fact that the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future due to a heavy backlog and without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.

¶26

Let the appellant, namely, Satish Kumar Maurya, be released on bail in the aforesaid Sessions Trial number during the pendency of appeal on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

¶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

The appellant has 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.

¶29

CRLA No. 3964 of 2025

¶30

4

¶31

As regards fine, half of the amount of fine will be deposited by the appellant within a month of his release from jail pursuant to present bail order, the remaining half of the fine shall be stayed during pendency the appeal.

¶32

Order of Appeal

¶33

List the appeal in due course for hearing.

¶34

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶35

April 8, 2026 dk/

¶36

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

Satish Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. to Home Deptt. Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kumar Maurya v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. to Home Deptt. 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

Ashish Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Bhithallu @ Ashik Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Guddi Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.and 2 Others

Aditya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

Meeraj Hussain and 11 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin Secy Home Lko. and Another

Jagga @ Jawahir Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another