Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2010
Suresh Pandit @ Nanku .....Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. ....Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list
the appeal for hearing in due course.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned
A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of
sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.
The accused-appellant Suresh Pandit @ Nanku has been
convicted in Special Sessions Trial No.19 of 2002 (Case Crime
No.172/2005) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506
I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act, Police Station
Dalmau, District Raebareli. The maximum sentence awarded to him
under Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act is six months’ rigorous
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment
of fine to further undergo two months’ simple imprisonment and all
the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused-
appellant was on bail during trial and presently he is on interim bail.
That there is nothing on record to show that he has ever misused the
liberty of bail.
In view of the above, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I
am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail. Let the
above appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on
furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount
to satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fine
imposed by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall
remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
27.1.2010.
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2010
Hasmat Ullah and others …..Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. ....Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list
the appeal for hearing in due course.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned
A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of
sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.
The accused-appellants Hasmat Ullah, Ikbal Kha and Ishhak
Kha have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.529 of 2005 (Case
Crime No.C-35/2004) for the offence punishable under Sections 452,
323/34, 504, 506(2) I.P.C., Police Station Pihani, District Hardoi. The
maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 452 is three
years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/- on each of
them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year’s
additional imprisonment and all the substantive sentences were
directed to run concurrently. Accused-appellants were on bail during
trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on
record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail.
In view of the above, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I
am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let
each of the above appellants be released on bail during the pendency
of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two
sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned
provided they deposit the fine imposed by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants shall
remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
27.1.2010.
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.166 of 2010
Israj and another .....Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. ....Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list
the appeal for hearing in due course.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned
A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of
sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.
The accused-appellants Israj and Kalloo have been
convicted in Sessions Trial No.884 of 1997 (Case Crime No.63 of
1994) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.
and under Section 3(1) (X) of SC & ST Act, Police Station Kasimpur,
District Hardoi. The maximum sentence awarded to them under
Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act is two years’ simple imprisonment
along with a fine of Rs.500/- on each of them and in default of
payment of fine to further undergo one month’s additional simple
imprisonment and all the substantive sentences were directed to run
concurrently. Accused-appellants were on bail during trial and
presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to
show that they ever misused the liberty of bail.
In view of the above, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I
am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let
each of the above appellants be released on bail during the pendency
of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two
sureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned
provided they deposit the fine imposed by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants shall
remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
27.1.2010.
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.158 of 2010
Suneel .....Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. ....Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list
the appeal for hearing in due course.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned
A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of
sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.
The accused-appellant Suneel has been convicted in
Sessions Trial No.116 of 2006 (Case Crime No.534 of 2004) for the
offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and under
Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act, Police Station Dalmau, District
Raebareli. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 3(1)
(x) of SC & ST Act is six months’ rigorous imprisonment alongwith
with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further
undergo two months’ simple imprisonment and all the substantive
sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused-appellant was
on bail during trial and presently he is on interim bail. That there is
nothing on record to show that he has ever misused the liberty of
bail.
In view of the above, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I
am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail. Let the
above appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on
furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount
to satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fine
imposed by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall
remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
27.1.2010.
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.168 of 2010
Karta Ram and another. …..Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. ....Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list
the appeal for hearing in due course.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned
A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of
sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.
The accused-appellants Karta Ram and Vinod have been
convicted in Sessions Trial No.29 of 2002 (Case Crime No.C-25/2001)
for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and under
Section 3(1) (X) of SC & ST Act, Police Station Khargupur, District
Gonda. The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 323
I.P.C. is one year’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- on each
of them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two
months’ additional simple imprisonment and all the substantive
sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused-appellants were
on bail during trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there
is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of
bail.
In view of the above, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I
am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let
each of the above appellants be released on bail during the pendency
of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the
like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they
deposit the fine imposed by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall
remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
27.1.2010.
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.2876 of 2009
Siya Ram and another. …..Appellants
Vs.
The State of U.P. ………Opp. Party
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Summon the lower court record and list the appeal for hearing
in due course.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G. A. and
perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No.137 of 2003 (Crime No.230 of 2000), the appellants
Siya Ram and Kripa Ram alongwith one another namely Badlu have
been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under
Sections 307/34 and 506(2) I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to
them under Section 307/34 I.P.C. is ten years’ rigorous imprisonment
along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to
further undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant
that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of his case is not
reliable one and the offence for which the appellant has been convicted is
not made out against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. That the
appellant has been falsely involved in the case and the learned trial court
has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. That the
role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Badlu and the appellants
have been assigned the role of exhortation. That the appellants were on
bail during trial and there is nothing on record to show that they ever
misused the liberty of bail and the appellants have every hope of success
in appeal.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.
Having regard to the quantum of sentence, facts and
circumstances of the case, the nature of the evidence adduced during
trial and arguments advanced by the parties and the probability
factor, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail.
Let the appellants Siya Ram and Kripa Ram be released on bail during
the pendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond
with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
Court concerned provided they deposit fine imposed by the trial court.
The operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain
suspended during the pendency of appeal.
27.1.2010
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.167 of 2010
Bandesh Singh .......Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh .......Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Summon the lower court record and list the appeal for hearing
in due course.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned
A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the record
of the case.
In S.T.No.513 of 2001 (case crime no.160 of 1999), appellant
Bandesh Singh has been convicted and sentenced for the offence
punishable under Sections 323/34, 325/34 and 504 I.P.C. The maximum
sentence awarded to him is three years’ simple imprisonment alongwith a
fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two
months’ imprisonment.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant
that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of his case is not
reliable one and the offence for which the appellant has been convicted is
not made out against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. That the
appellant has been falsely involved in the case and the learned trial court
has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and that
appellant was on bail during trial and the appellant has every hope of
success in appeal.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.
I have considered the respective submissions made by the
parties and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial
court. The maximum sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant
is only three years. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan
Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that
when a person is convicted and sentences to a short term imprisonment,
normal rule is that when his appeal is pending, sentence should be
suspended by enlarging appellant on bail and rejection can only be by
way of exception. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, keeping in view the arguments put forward by the learned counsel
for the appellant, the probability factors of the evidence on record, term
of the imprisonment awarded, conduct of appellant when on bail during
the trial and the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Case
Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai(supra), I am of the view that it is a fit case
for bail and suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Let appellant be
:2:
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned on
deposit of amount of fine imposed on him by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall
remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
27.1.2010
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2010
Shailendra Kumar Tiwari …….Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh …….Opp. Party
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Summon the lower court record and list the appeal for hearing
in due course.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned
A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the record
of the case.
In S.T.No.315 of 2005 (case crime no.233 of 2004), appellant
Shailendra Kumar Tiwari has been convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous
imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.4,000/- and in default of payment of
fine to further undergo six months’ imprisonment.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant
that the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of his case is not
reliable one and the offence for which the appellant has been convicted is
not made out against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. That the
appellant has been falsely involved in the case and the learned trial court
has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. He
further contended that on the same evidence of co-accused Kaushal
Kishore Tiwari and Mahesh Tiwari have been acquitted. He further
submits that the maximum sentence awarded to him is four years’
rigorous imprisonment and that appellant was on bail during trial and the
appellant has every hope of success in appeal.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.
I have considered the respective submissions made by the
parties and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial
court. The maximum sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant
is only four years. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan
Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that
when a person is convicted and sentences to a short term imprisonment,
normal rule is that when his appeal is pending, sentence should be
suspended by enlarging appellant on bail and rejection can only be by
way of exception. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, keeping in view the arguments put forward by the learned counsel
for the appellant, the probability factors of the evidence on record, term
of the imprisonment awarded, conduct of appellant when on bail during
the trial and the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Case
:2:
Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai(supra), I am of the view that it is a fit case
for bail and suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Let appellant be
released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties
each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned on
deposit of amount of fine imposed on him by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall
remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
27.1.2010
Tripathi
Crl. Misc. Application No.6080 of 2010.
In re :
Crl. Appeal No. 149 of 2010.(D).
Ashok Vs. State of U.P.
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the
appellant.
This appeal has been filed after a
period of limitation. An application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
A.G.A. to file objection against the
application the application for condonation
of delay within fifteen days.
List thereafter.
25.1.2010.
Tripathi
Crl. Appeal No. 149 of 2010.(D).
Ashok Vs. State of U.P.
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
List alongwith application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act with Crl.
Appeal No.2820 of 2009.
25.1.2010.
Tripathi
Crl. Misc. Application No.6080 of 2010.
In re :
Crl. Appeal No. 149 of 2010.(D).
Ashok Vs. State of U.P.
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the
appellant.
This appeal has been filed after a
period of limitation. An application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
A.G.A. to file objection against the
application the application for condonation
of delay within fifteen days.
List thereafter.
25.1.2010.
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.136 of 2010
Rakesh Kumar Singh and another.
Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P.
….Opp. Party
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list
the appeal for hearing in due course.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned
A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of
sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.
The accused-appellants Rakesh Kumar Singh and Shobh
Nath Singh have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.340 of 2006
(Case Crime No.33/05) for the offence punishable under Sections
323/34, 504. 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) (X) of SC & ST Act,
Police Station Gurubuxganj, District Raebareli.
The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 506 I.P.C. was
one year’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- on each of
them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s
simple imprisonment and all the substantive sentences were directed
to run concurrently. Accused-appellants were on bail during trial and
presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to
show that they ever misused the liberty of bail.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in
view of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the
opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let each of the
above appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal
on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like
amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they deposit
the fine imposed by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall
remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
25.1.2010.
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2010
Riyaz Ahmad
Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P.
….Opp. Party
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list
the appeal for hearing in due course.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned
A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of
sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.
The accused-appellant Riyaz Ahmad has been been
convicted in Sessions Trial No.221 of 2006((221-A/2006)
(N.C.R.No.18/2004) for the offence punishable under Section 323/34
I.P.C. and sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment. Accused-
appellant was on bail during trial and is presently on interim bail.
That there is nothing on record to show that he has ever misused the
liberty of bail.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in
view of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the
opinion that the appellant can be released on bail. Let the above
appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on
furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to
satisfaction of the court concerned.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall
remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
25.1.2010
Tripathi
Court No. 7
Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2010
Riyaz Ahmad
Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P.
….Opp. Party
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list
the appeal for hearing in due course.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned
A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of
sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.
The accused-appellant Riyaz Ahmad has been been
convicted in Sessions Trial No.221 of 2006((221-A/2006)
(N.C.R.No.18/2004) for the offence punishable under Section 323/34
I.P.C. and sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment. Accused-
appellant was on bail during trial and is presently on interim bail.
That there is nothing on record to show that he has ever misused the
liberty of bail.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in
view of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the
opinion that the appellant can be released on bail. Let the above
appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on
furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to
satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fine
imposed by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall
remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
25.1.2010
Tripathi
Original Suit No. 865 of 1997
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
Taken up today.
Sri Mohit Kumar, plaintiff in person
and Sri N.K. Seth Senior Advocate
assisted by Sri Sanjeev Agrawal for
defendant Dato Mohan Swami are
present.
Today in this case both the parties
have to admit and deny the documents
filed by each other. The documents are
alleged to be in a sealed cover with the
Registrar which have not been sent to
this Court today with the file. Both the
parties pray that this case be also taken
up from morning on10th February,2010
when other cases between the parties
are fixed for hearing.
As prayed by the parties, this
case be fixed on 10th February,2010 for
hearing.
Registrar of the Court is directed
to produce the documents kept in sealed
cover in the Court on the date fixed at the
time of hearing.
21.1.2010
Tripathi
Testamentary Case No. 1 of 2004
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
Taken up today for hearing.
The applicant Mohit Kumar in
person and Sri N.K. Seth Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar
Agrawal for Dr. Dato Mohan Swami are
present.
Since both the testamentary
cases are to be heard together and
Testamentary Case No. 3 of 2003 has
been fixed for hearing on 10th
February,2010, therefore, this case be
also be fixed for hearing on the same
day.
21.1.2010
Tripathi
Testamentary Case No. 3 of 2003
Hon’ble Vedpal,J
Taken up today for hearing.
Heard Sri N.K. Seth, Senior counsel
assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal for
petitioner and Sri Mohit Kumar, opposite party in
person.
Sri Mohit Kumar states that his C.M.An.
No.69254 of 2009 is pending for disposal. Sri N.K.
Seth, Senior Counsel states that the petitioner Sri
Dato Mohan Swami has moved an application
before Hon’ble the Supreme Court for
modification/ clarification of the order dated 27.3.
2008 and the application of Sri Mohit Kumar
pertains to the matter for which application for
clarification/ modification is pending for hearing
before Hon’ble the Supreme Court and is likely to
be taken up on 8.2.2010. He also states that his
C.M. Application No. 12334 of 2009 is also
pending for disposal and the copy of this
application was sent to Sri Mohit Kumar by post
but Sri Mohit Kumar states that he has not
received the same, on which Sri N.K.Seth,
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
furnished copy of Application No. 124334 of 2009
to Sri Mohit Kumar today before the Court.
Sri Mohit Kumar states that he has to file
an objection against C.M.An. No. 124334 of 2009,
the copy of which has been furnished him today.
He seeks fifteen days’ time to file objection. Since
the learned counsel for the petitioner has also
prayed that C.M. An. No.69254 of 2009 moved by
Sri Mohit Kumar be heard after 8th February,2010
and Sri Mohit Kumar also seeks time to file
objection against petitioner’s application
no.124334 of 2009, therefore, with the consent of
both the parties the case is fixed for 10th
February,2010 for hearing. Both the applications
moved by the petitioner Dr. Dato Mohan Swami
as well as Sri Mohit Kumar shall be heard on that
date.
21.1.2010
Tripathi
Civil Misc. An. No.4672 of 2010
in re
Writ Petition No. 126 (RC) of 2006
Ram Pal Vs. Jokhu
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
This is an application for recall of the order
dated 26.8.2009, dismissing the Writ Petition No.
126 (RC) of 2006 for non prosecution.
It has been stated in the affidavit annexed
with the application that when the case was fixed
for hearing on 26.8.2009, counsel for the
petitioner could not appear in the Court because
he could not see the case in the cause list.
Grounds shown in the affidavit are sufficient The petitioner was not going to be
benefited by getting the petition dismissed in
default. The application is allowed. The order
dated 26.8.2009 is recalled. The writ petition is
restored to its original number.
List the petition for hearing.
21.1.2010
Tripathi
I have gone through the representation of the employee (Sarfraj
Ahmad,Stenographer,Bahraich Judgeship) dated 31.7.2007, the report of the
District Judge dated 24.9.2009 and the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated
21.4.2005, passed in W.P.No.5877(SS) of 1990.
The applicant joined the service on 1.10.1986 as a Stenographer in
Bahraich Judgeship. He was ceased from service from time to time, I.e,
1.5.1988 to 4.1.1989,1.2.1990 to 14.2.1990,17.2.1990 to 24.5.1990,1.5.1990 to
26.8.1990 and 2.7.1991 to 19.4. 1992, but by means of the W.P.No. 5877(SS)
of 1990 he challenged the order dated 1.6. 1990 ,ceasing him from services.
The said writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was quashed.
Consequent to the said order, passed in the writ petition, the applicant
shall be deemed to be in continuous service. The District Judge in his report
dated 24.9.2009 has reported that no departmental enquiry is pending against
the applicant. Nothing adverse has been reported by the District Judge against
the applicant.
In view of the above, the representation is allowed and the District
Judge, Bahraich is directed to pay salary of the period from 1.6.1990 to
26.8.1990 and 2.7.1991 to 19.4.1992 with all consequential benefits including
the increment.
Tripathi
(Vedpal)
Administrative Judge
Session Division ,Bahraich
Bahraich
25.1.2010
Officer in Charge Computer
I have to say that today,i.e, 25.1.2010 I have uploaded wrong order in
Crl.Appeal No.138 of 2010, passed by Hon’ble Vedpal,J. In Court No.5. Kindly
get it deleted at the earliest.
(S.P.Tripathi)
P.S. to
Hon”ble Vedpal,J.
Employee No. 2515
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2010
Ashok Kumar Chaubey and another.
Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P.
….Opp. Party
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list
the appeal for hearing in due course.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned
A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of
sentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.
The accused-appellants Ashok Kumar Chaubey and Shiv
Kumar Chaubey have been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2004
(Case Crime No. 50 of 1998) for the offence punishable under
Sections 323/34, 504, 506 (2)I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) (X) of SC &
ST Act, Police Station Motiganj, District Gonda . The maximum
sentence awarded to them under Section 3(1)(X) S.C. and S.T. Act
was one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- on
each of them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two
months’ imprisonment and all the substantive sentences were
directed to run concurrently. Accused-appellants were on bail during
trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on
record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in
view of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the
opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let each of the
above appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal
on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like
amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they deposit
the fine imposed by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall
remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
25.1.2010.
Tripathi
Court No. 7
Criminal Appeal No.2709 of 2009
Shri Ram Yadav and another.
…….Appellants
Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh
…….Opp. Party
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned
A.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the record
of the case.
In S.T.No.385 of 1993 (case crime no.555 of 1992), appellants
Shri Ram Yadav and Raj Kumar have been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 412 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five years
rigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.3,000/- payable by each of
them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months
rigorous imprisonment.
As per prosecution version, accused appellant Shri Ram Yadav
was found in possession of 30 bags of sugar and appellant Raj Kumar was
found in possession of twenty five bags of sugar which was the property
in relation to which dacoity was committed by two persons namely Ishak
Ali @ Mama and Chand Babu. Learned counsel for the appellants
submits that there is no evidence against the appellants that they were in
knowledge of the fact that the property which was recovered from his
possession was property in relation to which dacoity was committed and
as such the offence does not fall within the purview of section 412 I.P.C.
but at the most it may be an offence under Section 411 I.P.C. Learned
counsel for the appellant in support of his submission relied on
Moinuddin Mozumdar Vs. State of Assam reported in AIR 1972 SC 655.
He further submits that the maximum sentence awarded to them is five
years’ rigorous imprisonment and that appellants were on bail during
trial and the trial was pending against them since 1992 and alleged
offence is not made out against the appellants and they have every hope
of success in appeal.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.
I have considered the respective submissions made by the
parties and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial
court alongwith the record of the appeal. The maximum sentence of
imprisonment awarded to the appellants, is only five years. Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of
Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that when a person is convicted and
sentences to a short term imprisonment, normally rule is that when his
appeal is pending, sentence should be suspended by enlarging appellants
on bail and rejection can only be by way of exception. In the present
case, the appellants are facing trial since last 18 years. Having regard to
the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the arguments
put forward by the
parties probability factors of the evidence
on record, term of the imprisonment awarded, conduct of appellants
when on bail during the trial, I am of the view that it is a fit case for bail
and suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Let appellants be released
on bail on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two reliable
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M./court
concerned on deposit of amount of fine imposed on them by the trial
court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall
remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
6.1.2010
Tripathi.
I have considered the respective submissions made by the parties and
perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court
alongwith the record of the appeal. The maximum sentence of
imprisonment awarded to the appellants, is only five years. Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of
Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that when a person is convicted and
sentences to a short term imprisonment, normally rule is that when his
appeal is pending, sentence should be suspended by enlarging appellants
on bail and rejection can only be by way of exception. In the present
case, the appellants are facing trial since last 18 years. Having regard to
the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the arguments
put forward by the
Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama
Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that when a
person is convicted and sentences to a short term imprisonment,
normally rule is that when his appeal is pending, sentence should be
suspended by enlarging appellant on bail and rejection can only be by
way of exception. In the present case as discussed above, on the same
evidence co-accused Ram Saran has also been acquitted against whom
the charge was for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping
in view the arguments put forward by the parties, probability factors of
the evidence on record, term of the imprisonment awarded, conduct of
appellant when on bail during the trial and the principles laid down by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Case Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai(supra), I
am of the view that it is a fit case for bail and suspension of sentence of
imprisonment. Let appellant be released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the C.J.M./court concerned on deposit of amount of fine imposed on
him by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall
remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
5.1.2010
Tripathi