Court No.5
C.M.An. No.122481 of 2009
in re
Crl. Appeal No.2227 of 2009
Mukesh Kumar Kaushal Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. Respondent
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
This is an application for correction of the order dated
18.9.2009, passed byHon’ble Sri Kant Tripathi,J.
Since Hon’ble Sri Kant Tripathi,J. is not available, this file
was sent to this Bench under the order of Hon’ble Senior Judge vide
order dated 12.1.2010.
This application for correction pertains to Criminal Trial No.
82 of 2004 arising out of Crime No.16 of 2004 under Section 8/21
N.D.P.S. Act,, Police Station Tikaitnagar, Barabanki which was
wrongly transcribed in Criminal Appeal No. 2225 of 2009 which
pertains to the offence punishable under Sections 328,379 and 411
I.P.C.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and
perused the record of the case.
It appears that instead of Criminal Trial No. 82 of
2004( Crime No. 16 of 2004), S.T.No. 71 of 2005 (Crime No. 18 of
2004) was wrongly written and order granting bail in N.D.P.S. Act was
wrongly transcribed in Criminal Appeal No. 2125 of 2009 ,which
requires correction.
Let Criminal Trial No. 82 of 2004( Crime No. 16 of 2004) be
substituted in place of Session Trial No. 71 of 2005( Crime No. 18 of
2004) on the record of Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2009.
The application for correction is accordingly allowed.
1.2.2010
Tripathi
Court No. 5
Criminal Appeal No.2227 of 2009
Mukesh Kumar Kaushal Vs. State of U.P.
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
This is an amended order dated 18.9.2009, passed in Criminal
Appeal No.2225 of 2009, passed by Hon’ble Shri Kant,J. In pursuance of
order passed today after nomination of this Bench by Hon’ble Senior
Judge in correction application no.122481 of 2009.
” Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A.
for the State and perused the impugned judgment and order.
The appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned
judgment and order dated 28.7. 2009 passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Court No. 8,Barabanki in Criminal Trial No. 82 of 2004
arising out of crime no.16 of 2004, Police Station Tikait Nagar, district
Barabanki whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced
under Sections 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act,1985. The maximum sentence imposed on the applicant is five years
under Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985.
Admit. Summon the lower court record.
The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
appellant was on bail during the trial and never misused the same. It was
further submitted that the applicant was found in possession of morphine
which was found on analysis less than the commercial quantity. No
public witness was examined during the trial to prove the recovery. It
was further submitted that there is no prospect of the appeal being
heard in near future due to heavy dockets.
Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case
and submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, let the
appellant Mukesh Kumar Kaushal be released on bail in Criminal Trial
No. 82 of 2004 arising out of crime no. 16 of 2004, Police Station Tikait
Nagar, District Barabanki under Sections 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 on his furnishing a personal bond and
two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned.
The realization of fine shall remain stayed during pendency of
the appeal, provided the appellant deposits half of fine within one month.
On acceptance of the bail bonds and personal bond,the lower
court shall transmit Photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept
on the record of this appeal.
Let the paper books be prepared.
List the appeal for final hearing in due course.”
1.2.2010/Tripathi
Court No.5
C.M.An. No.122480 of 2009
in re
Crl. Appeal No.2178 of 2009
Pradeep Kumar Kaushal Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. Respondent
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
This is an application for correction of the order dated
18.9.2009, passed byHon’ble Sri Kant Tripathi,J.
Since Hon’ble Sri Kant Tripathi,J. is not available, this file
was sent to this Bench under the order of Hon’ble Senior Judge vide
order dated 12.1.2010..
This application for correction pertains to Criminal Trial No.
81 of 2004 arising out of Crime No.15 of 2004 under Section 8/21
N.D.P.S. Act,, Police Station Tikaitnagar, Barabanki which was
wrongly transcribed in Criminal Appeal No. 2177 of 2009 which
pertains to the offence punishable under Sections 328,379 and 411
I.P.C.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and
perused the record of the case.
It appears that instead of Criminal Trial No. 81 of
2004( Crime No. 15 of 2004), S.T.No. 71 of 2005 (Crime No. 18 of
2004) was wrongly written and order granting bail in N.D.P.S. Act was
wrongly transcribed in Criminal Appeal No. 2177 of 2009 ,which
requires correction.
Let Criminal Trial No. 81 of 2004( Crime No. 15 of 2004) be
substituted in place of Session Trial No. 71 of 2005( Crime No. 18 of
2004) on the record of Criminal Appeal No. 2178 of 2009.
The application for correction is accordingly allowed.
1.2.2010
Tripathi
Court No. 5
Criminal Appeal No. 2178 of 2009
Pradeep Kumar Kaushal Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. Respondent
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
This is an amended order dated 18.9.2009 passed in Criminal
Appeal No. 2178 of 2009, passed by Hon’ble Sri Kant Tripathi,J. in
pursuance of order passed today after nomination of this Bench by
Hon’ble Senior Judge in correction application no.122480 of 2009.
“Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned judgment and order.
The appellant preferred this appeal against the impugned
judgment and order dated 20.7.2009 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No.8, Barabanki in Criminal Trial No. 81 of 2004 ( Crime
No. 15 of 2004), Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabnki whereby
the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 8/21
of the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985. The
maximum sentence imposed on the appellant is five years under
Section 8/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act,1985.
Admit. Summon the record.
Summon the lower court record.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant was on bail during the trial and never abused the same. It
was further submitted that the applicant was found in possession of
Morphine which was found on analysis less than the commercial
quantity. No public witness was examined during the trial to prove
the recovery. It was further submitted that there is no prospect of the
appeal being heard in near future due to heavy dockets.
Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the
case and submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, let the
appellant Pradeep Kumar Kaushal be released on bail in Criminal Trial
No. 81 of 2004 (Crime No. 15 of 2004), Police Station Tikait
Nagar,district Barabanki under Sections 8/21 the Narcotic Drug and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on his furnishing a personal bond
and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
court concerned.
The realization of fine shall remain stayed during the
pendency of the appeal, provided the appellant deposits half of the fine
within one month.
On acceptance of the bail bonds and personal bond, the lower
2
court shall transmit Photostat copies thereof to the Court for being
kept on record of this appeal
. Let the paper book be prepared.
List the appeal for hearing in due course.”
1.2.2010
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.2489 of 2009
Ajay Kumar Rastogi alias Pintu . ..Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. .........Opp. Party Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on
the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No. 677 of 2006 (Crime No. 500 of 2006 Police Station
Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri,) the appellant Ajay Kumar Rastogi alias
Pintu along with Shyam Kishore Rastogi has been convicted and
sentenced under Sections 304/34 I.P.C. for a period of ten years rigorous
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of
fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
evidence against him on the basis of which he could have been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 I.P.C. He further
submitted that co-accused Shyam Kishore Rastogi having similar case
has been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated11.11.2009 and
the allegations against the appellant are similar to that of co-accused
Shyam Kishore Rastogi. That the appellant was on bail during trial and
there is nothing on record to show that he ever misused the liberty of bail
and he has every hope of success in appeal, and as such he deserves
bail.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, this fact has
not been controverted by learned A.G.A. that similarly situated co-
accused Shyam Kishore Rastogi has been admitted to bail.
Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
There is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellant. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case,
having regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the
probability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released
on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with
two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M.
concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court. On
furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of
imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
29.1.2010
Tripathi
Crl. Appeal No.174 of 2010.
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
Learned counsel for the appellant does not
press this time barred appeal at this stage.
It is therefore, dismissed accordingly as not
pressed.
28.1.2010.
Tripathi.
Crl. Misc. Application No.7453 of 2010.
In re :
Crl. Appeal No.174 of 2010.
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
Rejected vide my order of date passed on
memo of appeal.
28.1.2010.
Tripathi.
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
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.172 of 2010
Pankaj Kumar Tewari 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 Pankaj Kumar Tewari and Rakesh
Kumar Tewari have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.82 of 2002
(Case Crime No.383/2001) for the offence punishable under Section
323/34 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo one year’s simple
imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment
of fine to further undergo two months’ simple imprisonment and have
have been acquitted to the charge for the offence punishable under
Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. 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 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 upon them by the trial court.
The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall
remain suspended during the pendency of appeal, thereafter.
28.1.2010.
Tripathi
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.
Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. It
reveals from the record that role of firing has not been assigned to any of
the appellants. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants has
substance. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, having
regard to the nature of evidence, adduced during trial 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
ourt 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
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.2230 of 2009
Satish. .. ...Appellant
Vs.
The State of U.P. .........Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the prayer for bail,
learned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No. 275 of 1997(Crime No. 154 of 1994), . the appellant
Satish has been convicted and sentenced to ten years R.I. along with a
fine of Rs.2000/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
three months additional imprisonment for the offence punishable under
Sections 304 I.P.C.
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. That on the basis of the
evidence available on record the offence for which the accused has been
convicted is not made out. That the evidence adduced by the prosecution
in support of the prosecution case is not reliable one. It was further
contended that as per prosecution version there was an altercation
between the appellant Satish and deceased Buddha. That deceased
Buddha had given a Danda blow to Satish whereupon Satish had also
given Phanti blow to Buddha on 2.4. 1994 at 10 a.m. It has further been
contended that the deceased died on 3. 4.1994 at the house of one Shri
Ram. It has further been contended that in the post mortem report
ligature mark on the neck of the body of the deceased was found and it
was not prosecution version that the accused caused this injury and
thus, the death was not the result of the injuries allegedly caused to the
deceased by the accused-appellant. That the appellant was on bail
during trial and there is nothing on record to show that he has misused
the liberty of bail and he has every hope of success in appeal.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.
Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. It
reveals from the perusal of the record that as per prosecution version
accused had given only one blow of Phanti to deceased Buddha,while at
the time of post mortem examination ligature mark was found on the
person of the deceased. The prosecution has not explained from where
this injury was received by deceased. The death of deceased had also
occurred on the next day of the incident at the house of one Sri Ram. In
view of the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the
nature of evidence,adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of
the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail during the
pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided he
2
deposits fine imposed by the trial court.
The operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain
suspended during the pendency of appeal, thereafter.
28.1.2010
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.2931 of 2009
Sandeep Rawat @ Panta ...Appellant
Vs.
The State of U.P. .........Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the prayer for bail,
learned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No.1166 of 2006(Crime No. 359 of 2005), appellant
Sandeep Rawat alias Panta has been convicted and sentenced under
Sections 395,397 and 412 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to him
under Section 395 I.P.C. is ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a
fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
three months additional imprisonment.
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. That on the basis of the
evidence available on record the offence for which the accused has been
convicted is not made out. That the applicant is neither named in the
F.I.R. nor he was put up for identification and there is no evidence to
connect him with the crime in question. That only evidence against him
is the alleged recovery of golden bangles. It has further been contended
that the alleged recovery is also doubtful as arrest of the applicant after
which recovery is said to have been made out was held doubtful in the
judgment of S.T.No.896 of 2006 wherein the appellant was acquitted. It
is also submitted that P.W.-1 Smt. Vinita Chandra has stated in her
evidence that applicant was previously known to her but even then
applicant was not named in the F.I.R. That the appellant was on bail
during trial and there is nothing on record to show that he has misused
the liberty of bail and he has every hope of success in appeal.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.
Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
The submissions made above by the learned counsel for the appellant
have substance and as such having regard to the submissions and nature
of the evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial and probability
factor of the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant may be released
on bail during the pendency of appeal by suspending sentence of
imprisonment.
Let the appellant be released on bail during the pendency of
appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided the appellant
deposits fine imposed on him by the trial court. On furnishing the
required bonds and on depositing the amount of fine, the operation of the
sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of
appeal.
28.1.2010/Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.2946 of 2009
Arif alias Modi ...Appellant
Vs.
The State of U.P. .........Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the prayer for bail,
learned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No.1167 of 2006(Crime No.359 of 2005), appellant Arif
alias Modi has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 395,397
and 412 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 395
I.P.C. is ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months
additional imprisonment.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant
has been falsely implicated in the case. That on the basis of the evidence
available on record the offence for which the accused has been convicted
is not made out. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that there is no reliable evidence against the applicant. That
the applicant is neither named in the F.I.R. nor he was put up for
identification and there is no evidence to connect him with the crime in
question. That only evidence against him is the alleged recovery of
golden chain. It has further been contended that the alleged recovery is
also doubtful as arrest of the applicant after which recovery is said to
have been made out was held doubtful in the judgment of S.T.No.896 of
2006 wherein the appellant was acquitted. It was further submitted that
appellant Arif was allegedly arrested by the police on 8.9.2005 while
telegram regarding his arrest was given on 6.9.2005, much earlier the
date of alleged arrest and recovery. It was also submitted that the
appellant was on bail during trial and there is nothing on record to show
that he has misused the liberty of bail and he has every hope of success
in this appeal.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.
Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
The submissions made above by the learned counsel for the appellant
have substance and as such having regard to the submissions and nature
of the evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial and probability
factor of the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant may be released
on bail during the pendency of appeal by suspending sentence of
imprisonment.
Let the appellant be released on bail during the pendency of
appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided the appellant
:2:
deposits fine imposed on him by the trial court. On furnishing the
required bonds and on depositing the amount of fine, the operation of the
sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of
appeal.
28.1.2010
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.3026 of 2009
Raju ...Appellant
Vs.
The State of U.P. .........Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the prayer for bail,
learned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No.1166 of 2006(Crime No. 359 of 2005), the appellant
Raju has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 395, 397 and
412 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 395
I.P.C. is ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months
additional imprisonment.
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. That on the basis of the
evidence available on record the offence for which the accused has been
convicted is not made out. It has been contended by the learned counsel
for the appellant that there is no reliable evidence against the applicant.
That the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and only evidence against
him is the alleged recovery of mobile, which has not been described in
the F.I.R. and no Sim number of the mobile was given in the F.I.R. and it
is common article. It was further contended that the appellant was put up
for identification before the three witnesses but none of them could
identify him. That the appellant was on bail during trial and there is
nothing on record to show that he has misused the liberty of bail and he
has every hope of success in appeal, so he deserves bail.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.
Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. In
view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to
the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, I
am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail during the
pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided he
deposits fine imposed by the trial court.
The operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain
suspended during the pendency of appeal, on furnishing bail bonds and
deposit of fine.
28.1.2010
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.3029 of 2009
Javed and another ...Appellants
Vs.
The State of U.P. .........Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants on the prayer for bail,
learned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No.1166 of 2006(Crime No.359 of 2005), the appellants
Javed and Sharik Hussain@ Poot @ Pootar have been convicted and
sentenced under Sections 395 and 397 I.P.C. The maximum sentence
awarded to them under Section 395 I.P.C. is ten years rigorous
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default of payment of
fine to further undergo three months additional imprisonment.
The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the
appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. That on the basis of
the evidence available on record the offence for which the accused have
been convicted is not made out. That the evidence adduced by the
prosecution in support of the prosecution case is not reliable one. It has
further been contended that the appellants Javed and Sharik Hussain @
Poot @ Pootar were put up for identification before three witnesses but
none of them could identify him and there is no other evidence against
them. 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 they
have every hope of success in appeal, and as such they deserve bail.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.
Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. It
reveals from perusal of the record that appellants Javed and Sharik
Hussain @ Poot @ Pootar were put up for identification before three
witnesses but none could identify them and they were also not named in
the F.I.R. and no article is alleged to have been recovered from their
possession.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case,
having regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the
probability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellants can 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 C.J.M. concerned provided they deposit fine imposed
by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the
operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during
the pendency of appeal.
28.1.2010
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.2749 of 2009
Abhai Raj Singh ...Appellant
Vs.
The State of U.P. .........Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the prayer for bail,
learned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No.82 of 1999 (Crime No. 80 of 1999, Police Station
Kotwali Nagar, Barabanki), the appellant Abhai Raj Singh has been
convicted and sentenced under Sections 376 I.P.C. for a period of ten
years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default
of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of one year.
The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
appellant has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
evidence against the appellant. That prosecutrix is a married and major
woman and the prosecution story as put forward is not probable. That as
per prosecution version the prosecutrix was taken forcibly in a sugar
cane field where the rape is alleged to have been committed but no
external mark of injury was found at the time of medical examination
which belies the prosecution version. It is further submitted that the
appellant was on bail during trial and there is nothing on record to show
that he ever misused the liberty of bail and he has every hope of
success in appeal, and as such he deserves bail.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.
Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
Admittedly, the prosecutrix is a major and married woman. At the time of
medical examination, no mark of injury was found on her person, even
though it is alleged that she was forcibly taken in the sugar cane field.
In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to
the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, I
am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail during the
pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided
they deposit fine imposed by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and
deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall
remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
29.1.2010
Tripathi
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
Heard the parties.
The appeal is admitted for
hearing.
Summon the record within
fifteen days.
List the appeal thereafter for
hearing on the prayer for bail.
Objection against the prayer for
bail, if any, may be filed by learned
A.G.A. in the meantime.
29.1.2010
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.2617 of 2009
Raj Kamal Singh and others. ...Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. .........Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A on
the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No.441 of 2008 (Crime No.171 of 2007), Police Station
Makhi, District Unnao, the appellants Raj Kamal Singh, Chhanga Singh,
Nan Singh and Gora Singh have been convicted and sentenced under
Sections 307/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to
them is eight years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of
Rs.8,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of six months rigorous imprisonment.
Prayer for bail on behalf of appellant no.1 Raj Kamal Singh has
not been pressed at this stage. Therefore, it is refused at this stage as
not pressed.
In regard to appellants Chhanga Singh, Nan Singh and Gora
Singh, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants
that they have been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
evidence against the appellants. That the role of causing fatal injury to
Vinod Kumar by fire arm has been assigned to Raj Kamal Singh and no
role of causing injury has been assigned to them. That it has further been
contended that there is no reliable evidence to connect the appellants
with the crime in question and their participation in the incident is not
proved beyond doubt. 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 they have every hope of success in appeal, and as such they
deserve bail.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, it has been
conceded that the role of causing injury to Vinod Kumar, has been
assigned to Raj Kamal Singh and role of causing injury was not assigned
to the appellants Chhanga Singh, Nan Singh and Gora Singh.
Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
There is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellants. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case,
having regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the
probability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellants Chhanga Singh,
Nan Singh and Gora Singh can 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 C.J.M.
concerned provided they deposit fine imposed by the trial court. On
furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of
imprisonment against these three appellants shall remain suspended
during the pendency of appeal.
29.1.2010
Tripathi
Court No. 5
Criminal Appeal No. 2566 of 2009
Ramu and another Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. on
the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No.752 of 2007 (Crime No. 257 of 2007,Police Station
Biswan,Sitapur), the appellants Ramu and Kialsh have been convicted
and sentenced under Section 304/34 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in
default of payment of fine to further undergo six months’ rigorous
imprisonment.
Prayer for bail on behalf of appellant no.1 Ramu has not been
pressed at this stage. Therefore, it is refused at this stage as not pressed.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that
they have been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
evidence against them on the basis of which they could have been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 I.P.C. It has
further been contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is
not reliable. He further submitted that appellant Kailash has been
assigned the role of catching hold only and the main role of causing fatal
injuries has been assigned to Ramu. That the appellant Kailash was on
bail during trial and there is nothing on record to show that he ever
misused the liberty of bail and he has every hope of success in appeal
and as such he deserves bail.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, it has been
contended that Kailash has been assigned the role of catching hold and
the role of causing fatal injuries has been assigned to Ramu.
Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
There is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellants. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case,
having regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the
probability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellant Kailash can be
released on bail during the pendency of bail on furnishing a personal
bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
C.J.M. concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court.
On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the
sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of
appeal qua the appellant Kailash.
29.1.2010
Tripathi
Court No. 5
Criminal Appeal No. 1755 of 2009
Ujagar Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on
the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No. 66 of 2007 (Crime No. 146 of 2006,Police Station
Khairabad, Sitapur ), the appellant Ujagar has been convicted and
sentenced under Section 376 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of
payment of fine to further undergo six months’ imprisonment.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that
he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
evidence against him on the basis of which he could have been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. It has
further been contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is
not reliable. He further submitted that the prosecutrix has attained the
age of discretion and is above 18 years of age and she in her statement
has deposed that she had relation with the appellant Ujagar since last
one month from the date of incident and, thus, the alleged offence is not
made out against the appellant and the appellant was on bail during trial
and there is nothing on record to show that he ever misused the liberty
of bail and he has every hope of success in appeal and as such he
deserves bail.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.
Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
There is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellant. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having
regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability
factor, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail
during the pendency of bail on furnishing a personal bond with two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M.
concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court. On
furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of
imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
29.1.2010
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.182 of 2010
Munna Surti ..... Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. ....Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard the parties
The appeal is admitted for hearing
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 Munna Surti has been convicted in
Sessions Trial No 503 of 2003 (Case Crime No. 439 of 2002) for the
offence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. and has been
sentenced to undergo five months’ s simple imprisonment alongwith
a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
fifteen days’ imprisonment . Accused-appellant was on bail during
trial and presently he is on interim bail. That there is nothing on
record to show that he 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 upon him by the trial court.
Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant
shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
29.1.2010.
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.185 of 2010
Sri Nath and others .....Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. ....Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard the parties .
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
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 Sri Nath, Kalika and Ram Bhawan
have been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 286 of 1996 (Case Crime
490 of 1996) for the offence punishable under Sections 323,506
I.P.C. as well as under Section 3(1)(X) S.C. and S.T. Act .The
maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 506 I.P.C. is one
year’s rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and in
default of payment of fine to further undergo three months’ simple
imprisonment. 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 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 upon them by the trial court.
Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
29.1.2010.
Tripathi
Court No. 5
Criminal Appeal No. 2466 of 2009
Salauddin Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on
the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No. 567 A of 2007 (Crime No. 112 of 2006,Police Station
Thakurganj, Lucknow ), the appellant Salauddin has been convicted and
sentenced under Section 307 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of six years and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment
of fine to further undergo five months’ imprisonment.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
evidence against him on the basis of which he could have been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. It has
further been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that in this
case co-accused Mahendra Kumar Gupta and Nasir were acquitted on the
same evidence, on the basis of which the appellant has been convicted.
It was further stated that initially it was alleged that injuries were
caused with knife while during trial the knife was converted into Chapar.
All the injuries alleged to have been caused by the appellant were simple
in nature and at the most the offence falls under Section 324 I.P.C. only
and the appellant has every hope of success in appeal and as such he
deserves bail.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.
Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
There is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellant. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having
regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability
factor, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail
during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M.
concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court. On
furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of
imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
1.2..2010
Tripathi
Court No. 5
Criminal Appeal No. 2537 of 2009
Smt. Kisana Devi and another Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. Opp. Party Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. on
the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No. 252 of 2003 (Crime No. 121 of 2001,Police Station
Lalganj, Rae Bareli ), the appellants Smt. Kisana Devi and Sri Ram
Bahadur have been convicted and sentenced under Sections 363/366
I.P.C.The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 366 I.P.C. is
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine
of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one
month’s imprisonment.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants
that they have been falsely implicated in the case and there is no
reliable evidence against them on the basis of which they could have
been convicted. It has further been contended that the appellants are not
named in the F.I.R., though F.I.R. was lodged after inordinate delay of 22
days and as per medical certificate and in the statement of the
prosecutrix the age of the prosecutrix was about 18 years. That
prosecution version is not probable against the appellants and they have
every hope of success in appeal . 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 as such they deserve bail.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.
Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
There is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellant. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having
regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability
factor, I am of the opinion that the appellants can 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
C.J.M. concerned provided they deposit the fine imposed by the trial
court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the
sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of
appeal.
1.2.2010
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.193 of 2010
Bobby Singh Appellant
Vs.
The State ....Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard the parties.
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
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 Bobby Singh has been convicted in
Special Session Trial No.76 of 2007 (Case Crime No. 243 of 2006 )
for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 354 I.P.C. and has
been sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment.
Accused-appellant was on bail during trial and presently he is on
interim bail, and there is nothing on record to show that he 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 upon him by the trial court.
Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant,
shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
1.2.2010
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2010
Ramu Appellant
Vs.
The State of U.P. ....Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard the parties.
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
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 Ramu has been convicted in S.T.No.
439 of 2009( Crime No. 489 of 2008) under Section 3/25 ( 1-b (a)
Arms Act and sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment along
with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further
undergo additional six months’ rigorous improvement. Accused-
appellant was on bail during trial and presently he is on interim bail.
That there is nothing on record to show that he 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 upon him by the trial court.
Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant,
shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
1.2.2010
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.198 of 2010
Smt. Vimla and another Appellants
Vs.
The State ....Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard the parties.
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
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-appellant Smt. Vimla has been convicted in
Session Trial No. 538 of 2007( Case Crime No. 74 of 2002) for the
offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. and maximum
sentence awarded to her under Section 366 I.P.C. is three years’
rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of
payment of fine to further undergo five months’ imprisonment.
The accused-appellant Kamla has been convicted in
Session Trial No. 484 of 2007( Case Crime No. 74 of 2002) for the
offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. and maximum
sentence awarded to her under Section 366 I.P.C. is three years’
rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of
payment of fine to further undergo five months’ imprisonment.
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 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 upon them by the trial court.
Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
1.2.2010
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.198 of 2010
Smt. Vimla and another Appellants
Vs.
The State ....Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard the parties.
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
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-appellant Smt. Vimla has been convicted in
Session Trial No. 538 of 2007( Case Crime No. 74 of 2002) for the
offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. and maximum
sentence awarded to her under Section 366 I.P.C. is three years’
rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of
payment of fine to further undergo five months’ imprisonment.
The accused-appellant Kamla has been convicted in
Session Trial No. 484 of 2007( Case Crime No. 74 of 2002) for the
offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. and maximum
sentence awarded to her under Section 366 I.P.C. is three years’
rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of
payment of fine to further undergo five months’ imprisonment.
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 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 upon them by the trial
court.
Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
1.2.2010
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2010
Prem Narayan and others Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. ....Opp.
Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard the parties.
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
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 Prem Narayan, Ram Padarath,
Babban and Jabbar have been convicted in S.T.No. 18 of 2009(Crime
No. 3 of 2007) under Sections 323/34 and 506 I.P.C. The maximum
sentence awarded them under Section 506 I.P.C. is two and half years
rigorous imprisonment. The 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 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.
Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
1.2.2010
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.197 of 2010
Jagannath and others Appellants
Vs.
The State ....Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard the parties.
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
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 Jagannath,Pramod, Shyamu alias
Bhayanna, Ramesh and Keshav have been convicted in S.T.No. 739 of
2007( Crime No. 189 of 2007) under Sections 147,323/149 I.P.C. The
maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 323/149 I.P.C. is
one year’s rigorous imprisonment. The 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 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.
Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
appellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
1.2.2010
Tripathi
Criminal Appeal No.2177 of 2009
Pradeep Kumar Kaushal Vs. State of U.P.
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
The order which was passed in this
criminal appeal ,in fact, pertains to Criminal
Appeal No. 2178 of 2009.
The order corrected today.
List appeal for hearing on prayer for
bail in the next cause list along with Criminal
Appeal No. 2178 of 2009.
1.2.2010
Tripathi
Criminal Appeal No.2225 of 2009
Mukesh Kumar Kaushal Vs. State of U.P.
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.
The order which was passed in this
criminal appeal ,in fact, pertains to Criminal
Appeal No. 2227 of 2009.
The order corrected today.
List appeal for hearing on prayer for
bail in the next cause list along with Criminal
Appeal No. 2227 of 2009.
1.2.2010
Tripathi
Incharge Computer
I have inadvertently uploaded wrong oder in Criminal
Appeal No. 2227 of 2009 Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. , the order
dated 1.2.2010,passed by Hon’ble Vedpal,J. Kindly delete the said
order at the earliest.
Shri Prakash Tripathi
P.S.
2.2.2010
EMPLOYEE n No. 2515
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.208 of 2010
Shishu Pal and others Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. Opp. Party
.
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard the parties.
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
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 Shishu Pal, Shambhu Yadav and
Sewak have been convicted under Sections 323/34,506 I.P.C. and 3
(1)(X) S.C. and S.T.Act in Special Session Trial No. 62 of 1999 (Crime
No. 63 of 1998). 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.3000/- on each of them and in default
of payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days’ 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.
2.2.2010
Tripathi
Court No.5
Criminal Appeal No.216 of 2010
Raju Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. Opp. Party
.
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard the parties.
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
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 Raju has been convicted in S.T.No.
401 of 2005 (Crime No. 8 of 1991) under Section 324 I.P.C. and
sentenced to two years’ imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/-
and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months’
simple imprisonment. The appellant was on bail during trial and
presently he is on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to
show that he 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 each in the like amount
to satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fine
imposed by the trial court.
Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
appellant, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
2.2.2010
Tripathi
Court No. 5
Criminal Appeal No. 2000 of 2009
Sharvan Kumar Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on
the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No. 1389 of 2008 (Crime No. 223 of 2008) the appellant
has been convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 I.PC. The
maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 376 I.P.C. is seven
years imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default of of
payment of fine to further undergo six months’ simple imprisonment.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
evidence against him on the basis of which he could have been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. It has
further been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the
proscutrix was above 18 years of age at the time of alleged incident as
per medical examination. Thus, she had attained the age of discretion and
remained with the accused for about four days and she did not raise any
alarm at that time. That presently the prosecutrix and the appellant are
residing with each other as a husband and a wife and on the basis of the
evidence on record the offence for which the accused-appellant has been
convicted is not made out and the appellant has every hope of success in
appeal and as such he deserves bail.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.
Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
There is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellant. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having
regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability
factor, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail
during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M.
concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court. On
furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of
imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
2.2..2010
Tripathi
Court No. 5
Crl. Misc.An. No.92379 of 2009
in re
Criminal Appeal No. 2514 of 2008
Rajnesh Applicant
Vs.
State of U.P. Opp. Party Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.
on the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.
In S. T. No. 717 of 2007 ( Crime No. 290/2007) the appellant
Rajnesh along with Hansu has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Sections 366 and 376 (2) G I.P.C. The maximum
punishment awarded to them under Section 376 (2) I.P.C. is ten years’
imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.4000/- and in default of payment of
fine to further undergo imprisonment of two months.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
evidence against him on the basis of which he could have been
convicted for the offence for which he has been convicted. It has further
been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that co-accused
Hansu having similar case has already been admitted to bail by Hon’ble
Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Singh under his order dated 1.5. 2009 as the
allegation of rape was also against the appellant Hansu admitted to bail.
It has further been contended that as per medical examination the
prosecutrix is a major girl and she remained with the accused for about
six months,but she did not raise any objection while she was living with
the appellant .It has further been contended that the brother of the
prosecutrix himself has deposed in support of the appellant that his
father wanted to marry his sister with the appellant Rajnesh. That there
is every hope of success in appeal and as such appellant deserves bail.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, it is
conceded by learned A.G.A. that co -accused has been admitted to bail
and the prosecutrix is a major girl.
Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant find support
from the record. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case,
having regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the
probability factor, I am of the opinion that appellant too can be released
on bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond
with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M.
concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court. On
furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of
imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
2.2..2010/Tripathi
Court No. 5
Crl. Misc. An. No.12352 of 2008
in re
Crl. Appeal No.1088 of 2007
Mohd. Sageer Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
This is an application for stay of the amount of fine till the
disposal of the appeal.
The order granting bail to the appellant was passed on
21.1.2008 by Hon’ble Mr Justice K.K.Mishra ( since retired). There must
be sufficient ground to stay the realization of fine while granting bail to
the appellant. No such ground has been shown in the affidavit,
accompanying this application.
No sufficient ground exists for staying the realization of fine.
The application is rejected.
2.2.2010
Tripathi
Court No. 5
Criminal Appeal No. 857 of 2007
Anit Kumar Awasthi Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on
the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No. 874 of 2004(Crime No. 417 of 2003) the appellant
Anit Kumar Awasthi has been convicted under Sections 498-A and 306
I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 306 I.P.C. is
seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.30,000/- and in
default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period
of one year.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
evidence against him on the basis of which he could have been
convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C.
It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that
the accused-appellant is in jail since the last four and half years and out
of maximum sentence awarded to him for a period of seven years, he has
undergone substantial portion of the imprisonment. During the trial he
was on bail and he never misused the liberty of bail and the appellant
has every hope of success in appeal and as such he deserves bail.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, it has been
conceded by learned A.G.A. that the appellant has undergone substantial
portion of his sentence.
Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
There is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
appellant. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having
regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability
factor, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail
during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two
sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M.
concerned provided he deposits one-fourth amount of the fine imposed
on him by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the
operation of the sentence of imprisonment and realization of rest of the
amount of fine shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
2.2..2010
Tripathi
Court No. 5
Criminal Appeal No. 2442 of 2009
Deep Narain Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on
the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No. 454 of 2003 ( Crime No. 667of 2003) the appellant
Deep Narain was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304
(2), 308, 323 and 336 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to him
under Section 304(2) I.P.C. eight years’ rigorous imprisonment along
with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. All the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
evidence against him on the basis of which he could have been
convicted for the offence for which he has been convicted. It has further
been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that only role
assigned to the appellant in the FIR is that of exhortation and as per
prosecution version fatal injury to the deceased was not caused by Deep
Narayan and the appellant is about 85 years of age and the probability
factors eco against the prosecution version and the appellant has every
hope of success in appeal and as such he deserves bail.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.
Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. In
the F.I.R. only role of exhortation has been assigned to the appellant. The
appellant is 85 years of age. The submissions of the learned counsel for
the appellant find support from the record. In view of all these facts and
circumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of evidence
adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of the opinion that
the appellant can be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on
furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided he deposits the fine
imposed by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine,
the operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended
during the pendency of appeal.
2.2..2010
Tripathi
Court No. 5
Criminal Appeal No. 540 of 2009
Taslim Appellant
Vs.
State of U.P. Opp. Party
Hon'ble Vedpal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on
the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.
In S.T.No. 349 of 2003(Crime No. 251 of 2002) the appellant
Taslim along with two others has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 307 and 324 I.P.C. The maximum sentence
awarded to him under Section 307 I.P.C. is seven years’ rigorous
imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine
to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
evidence against him on the basis of which he could have been
convicted for the offences for which he has been convicted It has
further been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that Taslim is
said to have been armed with rifle during the incident but no injury
caused by fire of rifle was found on the person of Nirmal Singh and all
the injuries were found to have been caused from the firing of gun as in
the X-ray examination pellets were found. It has further been submitted
that injured Nirmal, who sustained gun shot injuries, had also stated that
unknown person had made fire on him with gun and thus there is no
evidence to connect Taslim with the present case. It has further been
submitted that after investigation of the case final report was submitted
against Taslim and he was summoned to face trial under the provisions of
Section 319 Cr.P.C. and the appellant has every hope of success in appeal
and as such he deserves bail.
Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.
Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant find support from
the evidence on record. In view of the above, having regard to the nature
of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of the
opinion that the appellant can be released on bail during the pendency of
appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided he deposits
the fine imposed by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit
of fine, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain
suspended during the pendency of appeal.
2.2.2010
Tripathi