Court No. 5
Criminal Appeal No.2355 of 2009
Irfan and another. .....Appellant
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.14 of 2008 (Crime No.259 of 2007) the appellants
Irfan and Arman @ Imran were convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 304 (B), 498A I.P.C. and under Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section
304-B I.P.C. is ten years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of
Rs.2000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
rigorous 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 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 for which they have been convicted. It has
further been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the
appellants are brother-in-laws of the deceased and the allegation of
demand of dowry is general in nature and they were not going to be
benefited by demand of dowry as alleged by the prosecution and the
probability factors eco against the prosecution version and the
appellants 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 is
not disputed that the appellants are brother-in-laws of the deceased. The
primary responsibility lies on the husband for proper upkeeping of his
wife. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants find
support from the record. In view of all 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 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.
3.2.2010
Tripathi