{"id":118708,"date":"2010-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010"},"modified":"2016-03-18T15:07:41","modified_gmt":"2016-03-18T09:37:41","slug":"suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Suneel vs State Of U.P. on 27 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Suneel vs State Of U.P. on 27 January, 2010<\/div>\n
                                                           Court No.5\n                    Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2010\nSuresh Pandit @ Nanku                                 .....Appellant\n                               Vs.\nState of U.P.                                           ....Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/pre>\n
           Heard.\n<\/p>\n
           Admit.\n<\/p>\n
           Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list
\nthe appeal for hearing in due course.\n<\/p>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned
\nA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of
\nsentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
           The accused-appellant Suresh Pandit @ Nanku has been
\nconvicted in Special Sessions Trial No.19 of 2002 (Case Crime
\nNo.172\/2005) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506
\nI.P.C. and under Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act, Police Station
\nDalmau, District Raebareli. The maximum sentence awarded to him
\nunder Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act is six months’ rigorous
\nimprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000\/- and in default of payment
\nof fine to further undergo two months’ simple imprisonment and all
\nthe substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused-
\nappellant was on bail during trial and presently he is on interim bail.
\nThat there is nothing on record to show that he has ever misused the
\nliberty of bail.\n<\/p>\n
           In view of the above, having regard to the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I
\nam of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail. Let the
\nabove appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on
\nfurnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount
\nto satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fine
\nimposed by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
      The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall
\nremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
\n27.1.2010.\n<\/p>\n
Tripathi
\n                                                              Court No.5
\n                    Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2010
\nHasmat Ullah and others                               …..Appellants
\n                               Vs.\n<\/p>\n
State of U.P.                                           ....Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n           Heard.\n           Admit.\n<\/pre>\n
           Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list
\nthe appeal for hearing in due course.\n<\/p>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned
\nA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of
\nsentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
           The accused-appellants Hasmat Ullah, Ikbal Kha and Ishhak
\nKha have been       convicted in Sessions Trial No.529 of 2005 (Case
\nCrime No.C-35\/2004) for the offence punishable under Sections 452,
\n323\/34, 504, 506(2) I.P.C., Police Station Pihani, District Hardoi. The
\nmaximum sentence awarded to them under Section 452 is three
\nyears’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500\/- on each of
\nthem and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year’s
\nadditional imprisonment and all the substantive sentences were
\ndirected to run concurrently. Accused-appellants were on bail during
\ntrial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on
\nrecord to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail.\n<\/p>\n
           In view of the above, having regard to the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I
\nam of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let
\neach of the above appellants be released on bail during the pendency
\nof appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two
\nsureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned
\nprovided they deposit the fine imposed by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
      The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants shall
\nremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
\n27.1.2010.<\/p>\n
\nTripathi\n                                                              Court No.5\n                    Criminal Appeal No.166 of 2010\nIsraj and another                                       .....Appellants\n                               Vs.\nState of U.P.                                            ....Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n           Heard.\n           Admit.\n<\/pre>\n
           Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list
\nthe appeal for hearing in due course.\n<\/p>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned
\nA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of
\nsentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
           The   accused-appellants   Israj   and   Kalloo   have   been
\nconvicted in Sessions Trial No.884 of 1997 (Case Crime No.63 of
\n1994) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.
\nand under Section 3(1) (X) of SC & ST Act, Police Station Kasimpur,
\nDistrict Hardoi. The maximum sentence awarded to them under
\nSection 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act is two years’ simple imprisonment
\nalong with a fine of Rs.500\/-     on each of them and in default of
\npayment of fine to further undergo one month’s additional simple
\nimprisonment and all the substantive sentences were directed to run
\nconcurrently. Accused-appellants were         on bail during trial and
\npresently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to
\nshow that they ever misused the liberty of bail.\n<\/p>\n
           In view of the    above, having regard to the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I
\nam of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let
\neach of the above appellants be released on bail during the pendency
\nof appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two
\nsureties each in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned
\nprovided they deposit the fine imposed by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
      The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants shall
\nremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
\n27.1.2010.<\/p>\n
\nTripathi\n                                                            Court No.5\n                    Criminal Appeal No.158 of 2010\nSuneel                                                .....Appellant\n                               Vs.\nState of U.P.                                           ....Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n           Heard.\n           Admit.\n<\/pre>\n
           Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list
\nthe appeal for hearing in due course.\n<\/p>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned
\nA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of
\nsentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
           The accused-appellant Suneel has been         convicted in
\nSessions Trial No.116 of 2006 (Case Crime No.534 of 2004) for the
\noffence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and under
\nSection 3(1) (x) of SC & ST Act, Police Station       Dalmau, District
\nRaebareli. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 3(1)\n<\/p>\n
(x) of SC & ST Act is six months’ rigorous imprisonment alongwith
\nwith a fine of Rs.1000\/-   and in default of payment of fine to further
\nundergo two months’ simple imprisonment and all the substantive
\nsentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused-appellant was
\non bail during trial and presently he is on interim bail. That there is
\nnothing on record to show that he has ever misused the liberty of
\nbail.\n<\/p>\n
           In view of the above, having regard to the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I
\nam of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail. Let the
\nabove appellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on
\nfurnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount
\nto satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fine
\nimposed by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
        The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall
\nremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
\n27.1.2010.\n<\/p>\n
Tripathi
\n                                                            Court No.5
\n                    Criminal Appeal No.168 of 2010
\nKarta Ram and another.                                …..Appellants
\n                               Vs.\n<\/p>\n
State of U.P.                                           ....Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n           Heard.\n           Admit.\n<\/pre>\n
           Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list
\nthe appeal for hearing in due course.\n<\/p>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned
\nA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of
\nsentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
           The accused-appellants Karta Ram and Vinod have been
\nconvicted in Sessions Trial No.29 of 2002 (Case Crime No.C-25\/2001)
\nfor the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C. and under
\nSection 3(1) (X) of SC & ST Act, Police Station Khargupur, District
\nGonda. The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 323
\nI.P.C. is one year’ simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500\/- on each
\nof them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two
\nmonths’ additional simple imprisonment and all the substantive
\nsentences were directed to run concurrently. Accused-appellants were
\non bail during trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there
\nis nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of
\nbail.\n<\/p>\n
           In view of the above, having regard to the facts and
\ncircumstances of the case and the term of imprisonment awarded, I
\nam of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let
\neach of the above appellants be released on bail during the pendency
\nof appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the
\nlike amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided       they
\ndeposit the fine imposed by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
        The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall
\nremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
\n27.1.2010.\n<\/p>\n
Tripathi
\n                                                              Court No.5<\/p>\n
                    Criminal Appeal No.2876 of 2009
\nSiya Ram and another.                                      …..Appellants
\n                                     Vs.\n<\/p>\n
The State of U.P.                                        ………Opp. Party
\nHon’ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
           Heard.\n<\/p>\n
           Admit.\n<\/p>\n
           Summon the lower court record and list the appeal for hearing
\nin due course.\n<\/p>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G. A. and
\nperused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
           In S.T.No.137 of 2003 (Crime No.230 of 2000), the appellants
\nSiya Ram and Kripa Ram alongwith one another namely Badlu have
\nbeen convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable             under
\nSections 307\/34 and 506(2) I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to
\nthem under Section 307\/34 I.P.C. is ten years’ rigorous imprisonment
\nalong with a fine of Rs.10,000\/- and in default of payment of fine to
\nfurther undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment
\n           It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant
\nthat the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of his case is not
\nreliable one and the offence for which the appellant has been convicted is
\nnot made out against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.         That the
\nappellant has been falsely involved in the case and the learned trial court
\nhas not properly appreciated the evidence available on record. That the
\nrole of firing has been assigned to co-accused Badlu and the appellants
\nhave been assigned the role of exhortation. That the appellants were on
\nbail during trial and there is nothing on record to show that they ever
\nmisused the liberty of bail and the appellants have every hope of success
\nin appeal.\n<\/p>\n
           Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.
\n           Having regard to the quantum of sentence, facts and
\ncircumstances of the case, the nature of the evidence adduced during
\ntrial and arguments advanced by the parties and the probability
\nfactor, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail.
\nLet the appellants Siya Ram and Kripa Ram be released on bail during
\nthe pendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond
\nwith two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
\nCourt concerned provided they deposit fine imposed by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
           The operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain
\nsuspended during the pendency of appeal.<\/p>\n
\n27.1.2010\nTripathi\n                                                              Court No.5\n                     Criminal Appeal No.167 of 2010\n\n\nBandesh Singh                                               .......Appellant\n                                        Vs.\nState of Uttar Pradesh                                    .......Opp. Party\n\n\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n         Heard.\n         Admit.\n<\/pre>\n
         Summon the lower court record and list the appeal for hearing
\nin due course.\n<\/p>\n
         Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned
\nA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the record
\nof the case.\n<\/p>\n
         In S.T.No.513 of 2001 (case crime no.160 of 1999), appellant
\nBandesh Singh has been convicted and sentenced for the offence
\npunishable under Sections 323\/34, 325\/34 and 504 I.P.C. The maximum
\nsentence awarded to him is three years’ simple imprisonment alongwith a
\nfine of Rs.1000\/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two
\nmonths’ imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
         It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant
\nthat the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of his case is not
\nreliable one and the offence for which the appellant has been convicted is
\nnot made out against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.         That the
\nappellant has been falsely involved in the case and the learned trial court
\nhas not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and that
\nappellant was on bail during trial and the appellant has every hope of
\nsuccess in appeal.\n<\/p>\n
         Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.
\n         I have considered the respective submissions made by the
\nparties and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial
\ncourt. The maximum sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant
\nis only three years. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan
\nRama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that
\nwhen a person is convicted and sentences to a short term imprisonment,
\nnormal   rule    is that when his appeal is pending, sentence should be
\nsuspended by enlarging appellant on bail and rejection can only be by
\nway of exception.    Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
\ncase, keeping in view the arguments put forward by the learned counsel
\nfor the appellant, the probability factors of the evidence on record, term
\nof the imprisonment awarded, conduct of appellant when on bail during
\nthe trial and the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Case
\nBhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai(supra), I am of the view that it is a fit case
\nfor bail and suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Let appellant be
\n                                    :2:<\/span>
\nreleased on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties
\neach in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned on
\ndeposit of amount of fine imposed on him by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
           The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall
\nremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
\n27.1.2010
\nTripathi
\n                                                           Court No.5
\n                    Criminal Appeal No.153 of 2010<\/p>\n
Shailendra Kumar Tiwari                                   …….Appellant
\n                                      Vs.\n<\/p>\n
State of Uttar Pradesh                                  …….Opp. Party<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
         Heard.\n<\/p>\n
         Admit.\n<\/p>\n
         Summon the lower court record and list the appeal for hearing
\nin due course.\n<\/p>\n
            Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned
\nA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the record
\nof the case.\n<\/p>\n
           In S.T.No.315 of 2005 (case crime no.233 of 2004), appellant
\nShailendra Kumar Tiwari has been convicted for the offence punishable
\nunder Sections 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo four years rigorous
\nimprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.4,000\/- and in default of payment of
\nfine to further undergo six months’ imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
           It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant
\nthat the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of his case is not
\nreliable one and the offence for which the appellant has been convicted is
\nnot made out against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.         That the
\nappellant has been falsely involved in the case and the learned trial court
\nhas not properly appreciated the evidence available on record.          He
\nfurther contended that on the same evidence of co-accused Kaushal
\nKishore Tiwari and Mahesh Tiwari have been acquitted. He further
\nsubmits that the maximum sentence awarded to him is four years’
\nrigorous imprisonment and that appellant was on bail during trial and the
\nappellant has every hope of success in appeal.\n<\/p>\n
           Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.
\n           I have considered the respective submissions made by the
\nparties and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial
\ncourt. The maximum sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant
\nis only four years. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan
\nRama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that
\nwhen a person is convicted and sentences to a short term imprisonment,
\nnormal     rule   is that when his appeal is pending, sentence should be
\nsuspended by enlarging appellant on bail and rejection can only be by
\nway of exception.     Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
\ncase, keeping in view the arguments put forward by the learned counsel
\nfor the appellant, the probability factors of the evidence on record, term
\nof the imprisonment awarded, conduct of appellant when on bail during
\nthe trial and the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Case
\n                                :2:<\/span>
\nBhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai(supra), I am of the view that it is a fit case
\nfor bail and suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Let appellant be
\nreleased on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties
\neach in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned on
\ndeposit of amount of fine imposed on him by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
      The sentence of imprisonment       awarded to the appellant, shall
\nremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
\n27.1.2010
\nTripathi
\n  Crl. Misc. Application No.6080 of 2010.
\nIn re :\n<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal No. 149 of 2010.(D).\n<\/p>\n
Ashok Vs. State of U.P.\n<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
             Heard the learned counsel for the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
           This appeal has been filed after a
\nperiod of limitation. An application under
\nSection 5 of the Limitation Act.\n<\/p>\n
           A.G.A. to file objection against the
\napplication the application for condonation
\nof delay within fifteen days.\n<\/p>\n
           List thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
25.1.2010.\n<\/p>\n
Tripathi<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal No. 149 of 2010.(D).\n<\/p>\n
Ashok Vs. State of U.P.\n<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
           List alongwith application under
\nSection 5 of the Limitation Act with Crl.
\nAppeal No.2820 of 2009.\n<\/p>\n
 25.1.2010.\n<\/p>\n
Tripathi<\/p>\n
Crl. Misc. Application No.6080 of 2010.
\nIn re :\n<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal No. 149 of 2010.(D).\n<\/p>\n
Ashok Vs. State of U.P.\n<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
             Heard the learned counsel for the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
           This appeal has been filed after a
\nperiod of limitation. An application under
\nSection 5 of the Limitation Act.\n<\/p>\n
           A.G.A. to file objection against the
\napplication the application for condonation
\nof delay within fifteen days.\n<\/p>\n
           List thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
25.1.2010.\n<\/p>\n
Tripathi
\n                                                           Court No.5
\n                    Criminal Appeal No.136 of 2010
\nRakesh Kumar Singh and another.\n<\/p>\n
Appellants
\n                               Vs.\n<\/p>\n
State of U.P.\n<\/p>\n
….Opp. Party
\nHon’ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
           Heard.\n<\/p>\n
           Admit.\n<\/p>\n
           Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list
\nthe appeal for hearing in due course.\n<\/p>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned
\nA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of
\nsentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
           The accused-appellants Rakesh Kumar Singh and Shobh
\nNath Singh have been      convicted in Sessions Trial No.340 of 2006
\n(Case Crime No.33\/05) for the offence punishable under Sections
\n323\/34, 504. 506 I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) (X) of SC & ST Act,
\nPolice Station Gurubuxganj, District Raebareli.
\nThe maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 506 I.P.C. was
\none year’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500\/- on each of
\nthem and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month’s
\nsimple imprisonment and all the substantive sentences were directed
\nto run concurrently. Accused-appellants were on bail during trial and
\npresently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to
\nshow that they ever misused the liberty of bail.\n<\/p>\n
           Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in
\nview of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the
\nopinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let each of the
\nabove appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal
\non   furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like
\namount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they deposit
\nthe fine imposed by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
     The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall
\nremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
\n25.1.2010.\n<\/p>\n
Tripathi
\n                                                                 Court No.5
\n                        Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2010
\nRiyaz Ahmad
\nAppellant
\n                                   Vs.\n<\/p>\n
State of U.P.\n<\/p>\n
….Opp. Party
\nHon’ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
           Heard.\n<\/p>\n
           Admit.\n<\/p>\n
           Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list
\nthe appeal for hearing in due course.\n<\/p>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned
\nA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of
\nsentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
           The       accused-appellant    Riyaz   Ahmad   has   been   been
\nconvicted       in     Sessions   Trial   No.221    of    2006((221-A\/2006)
\n(N.C.R.No.18\/2004) for the offence punishable under Section 323\/34
\nI.P.C. and sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment. Accused-
\nappellant was on bail during trial and is presently on interim bail.
\nThat there is nothing on record to show that he has ever misused the
\nliberty of bail.\n<\/p>\n
           Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in
\nview of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the
\nopinion that the appellant can be released on bail. Let          the above
\nappellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on
\nfurnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to
\nsatisfaction of the court concerned.\n<\/p>\n
      The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall
\nremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
\n25.1.2010
\nTripathi
\n                                                                 Court No. 7<\/span>
\n                        Criminal Appeal No.148 of 2010
\nRiyaz Ahmad
\nAppellant
\n                                   Vs.\n<\/p>\n
State of U.P.\n<\/p>\n
….Opp. Party
\nHon’ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
          Heard.\n<\/p>\n
          Admit.\n<\/p>\n
          Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list
\nthe appeal for hearing in due course.\n<\/p>\n
          Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned
\nA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of
\nsentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
          The        accused-appellant    Riyaz   Ahmad   has   been   been
\nconvicted       in     Sessions   Trial   No.221    of    2006((221-A\/2006)
\n(N.C.R.No.18\/2004) for the offence punishable under Section 323\/34
\nI.P.C. and sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment. Accused-
\nappellant was on bail during trial and is presently on interim bail.
\nThat there is nothing on record to show that he has ever misused the
\nliberty of bail.\n<\/p>\n
          Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in
\nview of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the
\nopinion that the appellant can be released on bail. Let          the above
\nappellant be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on
\nfurnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to
\nsatisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits           the fine
\nimposed by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
      The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant, shall
\nremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
\n25.1.2010
\n Tripathi<\/p>\n
Original Suit No. 865 of 1997<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
       Taken up today.\n<\/p>\n
       Sri Mohit Kumar, plaintiff in person
\nand Sri N.K. Seth Senior Advocate
\nassisted by Sri Sanjeev Agrawal for
\ndefendant    Dato   Mohan       Swami   are
\npresent.\n<\/p>\n
       Today in this case both the parties
\nhave to admit and deny the documents
\nfiled by each other. The documents are
\nalleged to be in a sealed cover with the
\nRegistrar which have not been sent to
\nthis Court today with the file. Both the
\nparties pray that this case be also taken
\nup from morning on10th February,2010
\nwhen other cases between the parties
\nare fixed for hearing.\n<\/p>\n
       As prayed     by the parties, this
\ncase be fixed on 10th February,2010 for
\nhearing.\n<\/p>\n
       Registrar of the Court is directed
\nto produce the documents kept in sealed
\ncover in the Court on the date fixed at the
\ntime of hearing.\n<\/p>\n
 21.1.2010
\nTripathi<\/p>\n
Testamentary Case No. 1 of 2004
\nHon’ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
       Taken up today for hearing.<\/p>\n
       The applicant Mohit Kumar in
\nperson      and    Sri   N.K.   Seth    Senior
\nAdvocate assisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar
\nAgrawal for Dr. Dato Mohan Swami are
\npresent.\n<\/p>\n
       Since both the           testamentary
\ncases are to be heard together and
\nTestamentary Case No. 3 of 2003 has
\nbeen       fixed   for   hearing   on     10th
\nFebruary,2010, therefore, this case be
\nalso be fixed for hearing on the same
\nday.\n<\/p>\n
21.1.2010
\nTripathi
\n Testamentary Case No. 3 of 2003
\nHon’ble Vedpal,J
\n         Taken up today for hearing.\n<\/p>\n
         Heard      Sri N.K. Seth, Senior counsel
\nassisted by Sri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal for
\npetitioner and Sri Mohit Kumar, opposite party in
\nperson.\n<\/p>\n
         Sri Mohit Kumar states that         his C.M.An.
\nNo.69254 of 2009 is pending for disposal. Sri N.K.
\nSeth, Senior Counsel states that the petitioner Sri
\nDato Mohan Swami has moved an application
\nbefore      Hon’ble    the     Supreme           Court    for
\nmodification\/ clarification of the order dated 27.3.
\n2008 and the application of Sri Mohit Kumar
\npertains to the matter for which application for
\nclarification\/ modification is pending for hearing
\nbefore Hon’ble the Supreme Court and is likely to
\nbe taken up on 8.2.2010. He also states that his
\nC.M. Application No. 12334 of 2009 is also
\npending for disposal and the copy of this
\napplication was sent to Sri Mohit Kumar by post
\nbut Sri Mohit Kumar states               that he has not
\nreceived the same, on which Sri N.K.Seth,
\nlearned     Senior    Counsel      for     the    petitioner
\nfurnished copy of Application No. 124334 of 2009
\nto Sri Mohit Kumar today before the Court.\n<\/p>\n
         Sri Mohit Kumar states that he has to file
\nan objection against C.M.An. No. 124334 of 2009,
\nthe copy of which has been furnished him today.
\nHe seeks fifteen days’ time to file objection. Since
\nthe learned counsel for the petitioner has also
\nprayed that C.M. An. No.69254 of 2009 moved by
\nSri Mohit Kumar be heard after 8th February,2010
\nand Sri Mohit Kumar also seeks time to file
\nobjection        against     petitioner’s        application
\nno.124334 of 2009, therefore, with the consent of
\nboth the parties the case is fixed for                   10th
\nFebruary,2010 for hearing. Both the applications
\nmoved by the petitioner Dr. Dato Mohan Swami
\nas well as Sri Mohit Kumar shall be heard on that
\n date.\n<\/p>\n
21.1.2010
\nTripathi
\n Civil Misc. An. No.4672 of 2010
\n           in re
\nWrit Petition No. 126 (RC) of 2006
\nRam Pal             Vs. Jokhu<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
       This is an application for recall of the order
\ndated 26.8.2009, dismissing the Writ Petition No.
\n126 (RC) of 2006 for non prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
       It has been stated in the affidavit annexed
\nwith the application that when the case was fixed
\nfor hearing on 26.8.2009, counsel for the
\npetitioner could not appear in the Court because
\nhe could not see the case in the cause list.\n<\/p>\n
       Grounds shown            in the affidavit are\nsufficient    The petitioner was not going to be\n<\/pre>\n
benefited by getting the petition dismissed in
\ndefault. The       application is allowed. The order
\ndated 26.8.2009 is recalled. The writ petition is
\nrestored to its original number.\n<\/p>\n
       List the petition for hearing.\n<\/p>\n
21.1.2010
\nTripathi
\n        I have gone through the representation of the employee (Sarfraj
\nAhmad,Stenographer,Bahraich Judgeship) dated 31.7.2007, the report of the
\nDistrict Judge dated 24.9.2009 and the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated
\n21.4.2005, passed in W.P.No.5877(SS) of 1990.\n<\/p>\n
       The applicant joined the service on 1.10.1986 as a Stenographer in
\nBahraich Judgeship. He was ceased        from service from time to time, I.e,
\n1.5.1988 to 4.1.1989,1.2.1990 to 14.2.1990,17.2.1990 to 24.5.1990,1.5.1990 to
\n26.8.1990 and 2.7.1991 to 19.4. 1992, but by means of the W.P.No. 5877(SS)
\nof 1990 he challenged the order dated 1.6. 1990 ,ceasing him from services.
\nThe said writ petition was allowed and the impugned order was quashed.\n<\/p>\n
       Consequent to the said order, passed in the writ petition, the applicant
\nshall be deemed to be in continuous service. The District Judge in his report
\ndated 24.9.2009 has reported that no departmental enquiry is pending against
\nthe applicant. Nothing adverse has been reported by the District Judge against
\nthe applicant.\n<\/p>\n
       In view of the above, the representation is allowed and the District
\nJudge, Bahraich is directed to pay salary of the period from 1.6.1990 to
\n26.8.1990 and 2.7.1991 to 19.4.1992 with all consequential benefits including
\nthe increment.\n<\/p>\n
Tripathi
\n                                                  (Vedpal)
\n                                             Administrative Judge
\n                                            Session Division ,Bahraich
\n                                                    Bahraich
\n                                                   25.1.2010
\n Officer in Charge Computer<\/p>\n
        I have to say that today,i.e, 25.1.2010 I have uploaded wrong order in
\nCrl.Appeal No.138 of 2010, passed by Hon’ble Vedpal,J. In Court No.5. Kindly
\nget it deleted at the earliest.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  (S.P.Tripathi)
\n                                                      P.S. to
\n                                               Hon”ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
                                             Employee No. 2515
\n                                                              Court No.5
\n                    Criminal Appeal No.138 of 2010
\nAshok Kumar Chaubey and another.\n<\/p>\n
Appellants
\n                               Vs.\n<\/p>\n
State of U.P.\n<\/p>\n
….Opp. Party
\nHon’ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
           Heard.\n<\/p>\n
           Admit.\n<\/p>\n
           Summon the lower court record within three weeks and list
\nthe appeal for hearing in due course.\n<\/p>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned
\nA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and suspension of
\nsentence also. Perused the impugned judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
           The accused-appellants      Ashok Kumar Chaubey and Shiv
\nKumar Chaubey have been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 2004
\n(Case Crime No. 50 of 1998) for the offence punishable under
\nSections 323\/34, 504, 506 (2)I.P.C. and under Section 3(1) (X) of SC &
\nST Act, Police Station     Motiganj, District Gonda . The maximum
\nsentence awarded to them under Section        3(1)(X) S.C. and S.T. Act
\nwas one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000\/-       on
\neach of them and in default of payment of fine to further undergo two
\nmonths’ imprisonment and all the substantive sentences were
\ndirected to run concurrently. Accused-appellants were on bail during
\ntrial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is nothing on
\nrecord to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail.\n<\/p>\n
           Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in
\nview of the above and the term of imprisonment awarded, I am of the
\nopinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let each of the
\nabove appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal
\non   furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like
\namount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided they deposit
\nthe fine imposed by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
     The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall
\nremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
\n25.1.2010.\n<\/p>\n
Tripathi
\n                                                               Court No. 7<\/span><\/p>\n
                    Criminal Appeal No.2709 of 2009
\nShri Ram Yadav and another.\n<\/p>\n
…….Appellants
\n                                       Vs.\n<\/p>\n
State of Uttar Pradesh
\n…….Opp. Party<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
         Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned
\nA.G.A. on the prayer for bail pending appeal and also perused the record
\nof the case.\n<\/p>\n
         In S.T.No.385 of 1993 (case crime no.555 of 1992), appellants
\nShri Ram Yadav and Raj Kumar have been convicted for the offence
\npunishable under Section 412 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five years
\nrigorous imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs.3,000\/- payable by each of
\nthem and in default of payment of fine to further undergo six months
\nrigorous imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
         As per prosecution version, accused appellant Shri Ram Yadav
\nwas found in possession of 30 bags of sugar and appellant Raj Kumar was
\nfound in possession of twenty five bags of sugar which was the property
\nin relation to which dacoity was committed by two persons namely Ishak
\nAli @ Mama and Chand Babu.          Learned counsel for the appellants
\nsubmits that there is no evidence against the appellants that they were in
\nknowledge of the fact that the property which was recovered from his
\npossession was property in relation to which dacoity was committed and
\nas such the offence does not fall within the purview of section 412 I.P.C.
\nbut at the most it may be an offence under Section 411 I.P.C. Learned
\ncounsel for the appellant in support of his submission relied on
\nMoinuddin Mozumdar Vs. State of Assam reported in AIR 1972 SC 655.
\nHe further submits that the maximum sentence awarded to them is five
\nyears’ rigorous imprisonment and that appellants were on bail during
\ntrial and the trial was pending against them since 1992 and alleged
\noffence is not made out against the appellants and they have every hope
\nof success in appeal.\n<\/p>\n
         Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.
\n         I have considered the respective submissions made by the
\nparties and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial
\ncourt alongwith the record of the appeal.     The maximum sentence of
\nimprisonment awarded to the appellants, is only five years. Hon’ble the
\nSupreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of
\nGujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that when a person is convicted and
\nsentences to a short term imprisonment, normally rule is that when his
\nappeal is pending, sentence should be suspended by enlarging appellants
\n on bail and rejection can only be by way of exception.        In the present
\ncase, the appellants are facing trial since last 18 years. Having regard to
\nthe facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the arguments
\nput forward by the
\nparties                                  probability factors of the evidence
\non record, term of the imprisonment awarded, conduct of appellants
\nwhen on bail during the trial, I am of the view that it is a fit case for bail
\nand suspension of sentence of imprisonment. Let appellants be released
\non bail on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two reliable
\nsureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M.\/court
\nconcerned on deposit of amount of fine imposed on them by the trial
\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n
         The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall
\nremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
\n6.1.2010
\nTripathi.\n<\/p>\n
 I have considered the respective submissions made by the parties and
\nperused the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial court
\nalongwith the record of the appeal.          The maximum sentence of
\nimprisonment awarded to the appellants, is only five years. Hon’ble the
\nSupreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai Vs. State of
\nGujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that when a person is convicted and
\nsentences to a short term imprisonment, normally rule is that when his
\nappeal is pending, sentence should be suspended by enlarging appellants
\non bail and rejection can only be by way of exception.      In the present
\ncase, the appellants are facing trial since last 18 years. Having regard to
\nthe facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the arguments
\nput forward by the
\n           Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the      case of Bhagwan Rama
\nShinde Gosai Vs. State of Gujrat( 1999) 4 SCC 421 has held that when a
\nperson is convicted and sentences        to a short term imprisonment,
\nnormally rule is that when his appeal is pending, sentence should be
\nsuspended by enlarging appellant on bail and rejection can only be by
\nway of exception. In the present case as discussed above, on the same
\nevidence co-accused Ram Saran has also been acquitted against whom
\nthe charge was for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
      Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping
\nin view the arguments put forward by the parties, probability factors of
\nthe evidence on record, term of the imprisonment awarded, conduct of
\nappellant when on bail during the trial and the principles laid down by
\nHon’ble Supreme Court in Case Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai(supra), I
\nam of the view that it is a fit case for bail and suspension of sentence of
\nimprisonment. Let appellant be released on bail on furnishing a personal
\nbond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction
\nof the C.J.M.\/court concerned on deposit of amount of fine imposed on
\nhim by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
      The sentence of imprisonment       awarded to the appellant, shall
\nremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
\n5.1.2010
\nTripathi\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Suneel vs State Of U.P. on 27 January, 2010 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-118708","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSuneel vs State Of U.P. on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Suneel vs State Of U.P. on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-18T09:37:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Suneel vs State Of U.P. on 27 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-18T09:37:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5634,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Suneel vs State Of U.P. on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-18T09:37:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Suneel vs State Of U.P. on 27 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Suneel vs State Of U.P. on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Suneel vs State Of U.P. on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-18T09:37:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Suneel vs State Of U.P. on 27 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-18T09:37:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010"},"wordCount":5634,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010","name":"Suneel vs State Of U.P. on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-18T09:37:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/suneel-vs-state-of-u-p-on-27-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Suneel vs State Of U.P. on 27 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118708","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=118708"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118708\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118708"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118708"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118708"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}