{"id":37951,"date":"2010-02-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010"},"modified":"2019-01-24T01:59:57","modified_gmt":"2019-01-23T20:29:57","slug":"sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sharvan Kumar vs The State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
Sharvan Kumar vs The State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2010<\/div>\n
                                                             Court No.5\n                             C.M.An. No.122481 of 2009\n                                     in re\n                             Crl. Appeal No.2227 of 2009\nMukesh Kumar Kaushal                            Appellant\n                                   Vs.\nState of U.P.                                   Respondent\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/pre>\n
           This is an application for    correction of the order dated
\n18.9.2009, passed byHon’ble Sri Kant Tripathi,J.\n<\/p>\n
           Since Hon’ble Sri Kant Tripathi,J. is not available, this file
\nwas sent to this Bench under the order of Hon’ble Senior Judge vide
\norder dated 12.1.2010.\n<\/p>\n
           This application for correction pertains to Criminal Trial No.
\n82 of 2004 arising out of Crime No.16 of 2004 under Section 8\/21
\nN.D.P.S. Act,, Police Station Tikaitnagar, Barabanki which was
\nwrongly transcribed in Criminal Appeal No. 2225 of 2009 which
\npertains to the offence punishable under Sections 328,379 and 411
\nI.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and
\nperused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
           It appears that instead of Criminal Trial No. 82 of
\n2004( Crime No. 16 of 2004), S.T.No. 71 of 2005 (Crime No. 18 of
\n2004) was wrongly written and order granting bail in N.D.P.S. Act was
\nwrongly transcribed     in    Criminal Appeal No. 2125 of 2009 ,which
\nrequires correction.\n<\/p>\n
           Let Criminal Trial No. 82 of 2004( Crime No. 16 of 2004) be
\nsubstituted in place of Session Trial No. 71 of 2005( Crime No. 18 of
\n2004) on the record of Criminal Appeal No. 2227 of 2009.\n<\/p>\n
           The application for correction is accordingly allowed.<\/p>\n
\n1.2.2010\nTripathi\n                                                               Court No. 5<\/span>\n                    Criminal Appeal No.2227 of 2009\nMukesh Kumar Kaushal            Vs.      State of U.P.\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
         This is an amended order dated 18.9.2009, passed in Criminal
\nAppeal No.2225 of 2009, passed by Hon’ble Shri Kant,J. In pursuance of
\norder passed today after nomination of this Bench by Hon’ble Senior
\nJudge in correction application no.122481 of 2009.
\n” Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J.\n<\/p>\n
         Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A.
\nfor the State and perused the impugned judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
         The appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned
\njudgment and order dated 28.7. 2009 passed by the learned Additional
\nSessions Judge, Court No. 8,Barabanki in Criminal Trial No. 82 of 2004
\narising out of crime no.16 of 2004, Police Station Tikait Nagar, district
\nBarabanki whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced
\nunder Sections 8\/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
\nAct,1985. The maximum sentence imposed on the applicant is five years
\nunder Section 8\/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
\nAct, 1985.\n<\/p>\n
         Admit. Summon the lower court record.\n<\/p>\n
         The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
\nappellant was on bail during the trial and never misused the same. It was
\nfurther submitted that the applicant was found in possession of morphine
\nwhich was found on analysis less than the commercial quantity. No
\npublic witness was examined during the trial to prove the recovery. It
\nwas further submitted that there is no prospect of the appeal being
\nheard in near future due to heavy dockets.\n<\/p>\n
         Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case
\nand submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, let the
\nappellant Mukesh Kumar Kaushal be released on bail in Criminal Trial
\nNo. 82 of 2004 arising out of crime no. 16 of 2004, Police Station Tikait
\nNagar, District Barabanki under Sections 8\/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and
\nPsychotropic Substances Act,1985 on his furnishing a personal bond and
\ntwo sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court
\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
         The realization of fine shall remain stayed during pendency of
\nthe appeal, provided the appellant deposits half of fine within one month.\n<\/p>\n
         On acceptance of the bail bonds and personal bond,the lower
\ncourt shall transmit Photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept
\non the record of this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
         Let the paper books be prepared.\n<\/p>\n
         List the appeal for final hearing in due course.”
\n1.2.2010\/Tripathi
\n                                                             Court No.5
\n                            C.M.An. No.122480 of 2009
\n                                    in re
\n                            Crl. Appeal No.2178 of 2009
\nPradeep Kumar Kaushal                         Appellant
\n                                  Vs.\n<\/p>\n
State of U.P.                                  Respondent\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n         This is an application for     correction of the order dated\n<\/pre>\n
18.9.2009, passed byHon’ble Sri Kant Tripathi,J.\n<\/p>\n
         Since Hon’ble Sri Kant Tripathi,J. is not available, this file
\nwas sent to this Bench under the order of Hon’ble Senior Judge vide
\norder dated 12.1.2010..\n<\/p>\n
         This application for correction pertains to Criminal Trial No.
\n81 of 2004 arising out of Crime No.15 of 2004 under Section 8\/21
\nN.D.P.S. Act,, Police Station Tikaitnagar, Barabanki which was
\nwrongly transcribed in Criminal Appeal No. 2177 of 2009 which
\npertains to the offence punishable under Sections 328,379 and 411
\nI.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
         Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and
\nperused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
         It appears that instead of Criminal Trial No. 81 of
\n2004( Crime No. 15 of 2004), S.T.No. 71 of 2005 (Crime No. 18 of
\n2004) was wrongly written and order granting bail in N.D.P.S. Act was
\nwrongly transcribed    in    Criminal Appeal No. 2177 of 2009 ,which
\nrequires correction.\n<\/p>\n
            Let Criminal Trial No. 81 of 2004( Crime No. 15 of 2004) be
\nsubstituted in place of Session Trial No. 71 of 2005( Crime No. 18 of
\n2004) on the record of Criminal Appeal No. 2178 of 2009.\n<\/p>\n
           The application for correction is accordingly allowed.<\/p>\n
\n1.2.2010\nTripathi\n                                                                   Court No. 5<\/span>\n                Criminal Appeal No. 2178 of 2009\nPradeep Kumar Kaushal                              Appellants\n                                Vs.\nState of U.P.                                       Respondent\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/pre>\n
         This is an amended order dated 18.9.2009 passed in Criminal
\nAppeal No. 2178 of 2009, passed by Hon’ble              Sri Kant Tripathi,J. in
\npursuance of      order passed today after nomination of this Bench by
\nHon’ble Senior Judge in correction application no.122480 of 2009.
\n“Hon’ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J.\n<\/p>\n
         Heard learned counsel for the           appellant and the learned
\nA.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned judgment and order.\n<\/p>\n
         The appellant preferred this appeal against the impugned
\njudgment and order dated 20.7.2009 passed by Additional Sessions
\nJudge, Court No.8, Barabanki in Criminal Trial No. 81 of 2004 ( Crime
\nNo. 15 of 2004), Police Station Tikait Nagar, District Barabnki whereby
\nthe appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 8\/21
\nof the Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985. The
\nmaximum sentence imposed on the appellant is five years under
\nSection 8\/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
\nAct,1985.\n<\/p>\n
         Admit. Summon the record.\n<\/p>\n
         Summon the lower court record.\n<\/p>\n
         Learned      counsel   for   the   appellant    submitted   that   the
\nappellant was on bail during the trial and never abused the same. It
\nwas further submitted that the applicant was found in possession of
\nMorphine which was found on analysis less than the commercial
\nquantity. No public witness was examined during the trial to prove
\nthe recovery. It was further submitted that there is no prospect of the
\nappeal being heard in near future due to heavy dockets.\n<\/p>\n
         Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the
\ncase and submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, let the
\nappellant Pradeep Kumar Kaushal be released on bail in Criminal Trial
\nNo. 81 of 2004 (Crime No. 15 of 2004), Police Station Tikait
\nNagar,district Barabanki under Sections 8\/21 the Narcotic Drug and
\nPsychotropic Substances Act, 1985 on his furnishing a personal bond
\nand two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
\ncourt concerned.\n<\/p>\n
         The realization of fine shall remain stayed during the
\npendency of the appeal, provided the appellant deposits half of the fine
\nwithin one month.\n<\/p>\n
         On acceptance of the bail bonds and personal bond, the lower
\n                                      2<\/span>
\ncourt shall transmit Photostat copies thereof to the Court for being
\nkept on record of this appeal
\n.          Let the paper book be prepared.\n<\/p>\n
           List the appeal for hearing in due course.”
\n1.2.2010
\nTripathi<\/p>\n
                                                               Court No.5
\n                     Criminal Appeal No.2489 of 2009
\nAjay Kumar Rastogi alias Pintu               .            ..Appellant
\n                                   Vs.\n<\/p>\n
State of U.P.                                       .........Opp. Party\n\n\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/pre>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on
\nthe prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
           In S.T.No. 677 of 2006 (Crime No. 500 of 2006 Police Station
\nGola, District Lakhimpur Kheri,) the appellant Ajay Kumar Rastogi alias
\nPintu   along with Shyam Kishore Rastogi has been convicted and
\nsentenced under Sections 304\/34 I.P.C. for a period of ten years rigorous
\nimprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000\/- and in default of payment of
\nfine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year.\n<\/p>\n
           It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
\nthat he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
\nevidence against     him on the basis of which     he      could have been
\nconvicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 I.P.C. He further
\n submitted that co-accused Shyam Kishore Rastogi having similar case
\nhas been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated11.11.2009 and
\nthe allegations against the appellant are similar to that of co-accused
\nShyam Kishore Rastogi. That the appellant was on bail during trial and
\nthere is nothing on record to show that he ever misused the liberty of bail
\nand he has every hope of success in appeal, and as such he deserves
\nbail.\n<\/p>\n
           Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, this fact has
\nnot been controverted by learned A.G.A. that similarly situated co-
\naccused Shyam Kishore Rastogi has been admitted to bail.\n<\/p>\n
           Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
\nThere is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
\nappellant. In view of all these facts and circumstances of       the case,
\nhaving regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the
\nprobability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellant can be released
\non bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with
\ntwo sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M.
\nconcerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court. On
\nfurnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of
\nimprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
\n29.1.2010
\nTripathi
\n Crl. Appeal No.174 of 2010.\n<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
          Learned counsel for the appellant does not
\npress this time barred appeal at this stage.\n<\/p>\n
          It is therefore, dismissed accordingly as not
\npressed.\n<\/p>\n
28.1.2010.\n<\/p>\n
Tripathi.\n<\/p>\n
Crl. Misc. Application No.7453 of 2010.\n<\/p>\n
In re :\n<\/p>\n
Crl. Appeal No.174 of 2010.\n<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
          Rejected vide my order of date passed on
\nmemo of appeal.\n<\/p>\n
28.1.2010.\n<\/p>\n
Tripathi.\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
\nbenefited 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
\n                                                              Court No.5
\n                    Criminal Appeal No.172 of 2010
\nPankaj Kumar Tewari 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 Pankaj Kumar Tewari and Rakesh
\nKumar Tewari have been convicted in Sessions Trial No.82 of 2002
\n(Case Crime No.383\/2001) for the offence punishable under Section
\n323\/34 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo one year’s simple
\nimprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1000\/- and in default of payment
\nof fine to further undergo two months’ simple imprisonment and have
\nhave been acquitted to the charge for the offence punishable under
\nSections 307 and 324 I.P.C. 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 the
\nabove appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal
\non furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two sureties each
\nin the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided
\nthey deposit the fine imposed upon them by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
     The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, shall
\nremain suspended during the pendency of appeal, thereafter.
\n28.1.2010.<\/p>\n
\nTripathi\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           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 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
\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           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 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 been
\nconvicted and sentenced for the offence punishable         under Sections
\n307\/34 and 506(2) I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to them under
\nSection 307\/34 I.P.C. is ten years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a
\nfine of Rs.10,000\/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
\none 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<\/p>\n
           Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. It
\nreveals from the record that role of firing has not been assigned to any of
\nthe appellants. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants has
\nsubstance.    In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, having
\nregard to the nature of evidence, adduced during trial and the probability
\nfactor, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail. Let
\nthe appellants Siya Ram and Kripa Ram be released on bail during the
\npendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal bond with
\ntwo sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court
\nconcerned 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<\/p>\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<\/p>\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
\n of 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.\n<\/p>\n
In 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.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal No.2820 of 2009.\n<\/p>\n
25.1.2010.\n<\/p>\n
Tripathi<\/p>\n
Crl. Misc. Application No.6080 of 2010.\n<\/p>\n
In 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                                                                  ourt 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
\nTripathi
\n Original Suit No. 865 of 1997<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
       Taken up today.<\/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
\n Agrawal 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.\n<\/p>\n
No.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<\/p>\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.<\/p>\n
\n5.1.2010\nTripathi\n                                                                  Court No.5\n                      Criminal Appeal No.2230 of 2009\nSatish.                                   ..               ...Appellant\n                                    Vs.\nThe State of U.P.                                         .........Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the prayer for bail,
\nlearned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
           In S.T.No. 275 of 1997(Crime No. 154 of 1994), . the appellant
\nSatish has been convicted and sentenced to ten years R.I. along with a
\nfine of Rs.2000\/ and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
\nthree months additional imprisonment for the offence punishable under
\nSections 304 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
           The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
\nappellant has been falsely implicated in the case. That on the basis of the
\nevidence available on record the offence for which the accused has been
\nconvicted is not made out. That the evidence adduced by the prosecution
\nin support of the prosecution case        is not reliable one. It was further
\ncontended that      as per prosecution version there was an altercation
\nbetween the appellant Satish and deceased             Buddha. That deceased
\nBuddha had given a Danda blow to Satish whereupon Satish had also
\ngiven Phanti blow to Buddha on 2.4. 1994 at 10 a.m. It has further been
\ncontended that the deceased died on 3. 4.1994 at the house of one Shri
\nRam. It has further been contended that in the post mortem report
\nligature mark on the neck of the body of the deceased was found and it
\nwas not prosecution version that the accused           caused this injury and
\nthus, the death was not the result of the injuries allegedly caused to the
\ndeceased     by the accused-appellant. That the appellant         was on bail
\nduring trial and there is nothing on record to show that he has misused
\nthe liberty of bail and he has every hope of success in appeal.\n<\/p>\n
           Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.\n<\/p>\n
           Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. It
\nreveals from the perusal of the record that as per prosecution version
\naccused had given only one blow of Phanti to deceased Buddha,while at
\nthe time of post mortem examination            ligature mark was found on the
\nperson of the deceased. The prosecution has not explained from where
\nthis injury was received by deceased. The death of deceased had also
\noccurred on the next day of the incident at the house of one Sri Ram. In
\nview of the facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to the
\nnature of evidence,adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of
\nthe opinion that the appellant can be released on bail during the
\npendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each
\nin the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided he
\n                                     2<\/span>
\ndeposits fine imposed by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
           The operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain
\nsuspended during the pendency of appeal, thereafter.<\/p>\n
\n28.1.2010\nTripathi\n                                                               Court No.5\n                     Criminal Appeal No.2931 of 2009\nSandeep Rawat @ Panta                                     ...Appellant\n                                   Vs.\nThe State of U.P.                                      .........Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/pre>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the prayer for bail,
\nlearned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
           In S.T.No.1166 of   2006(Crime No. 359 of      2005), appellant
\nSandeep Rawat alias Panta has been convicted and sentenced under
\nSections 395,397 and 412 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to him
\nunder Section 395 I.P.C. is ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a
\nfine of Rs. 5000\/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
\nthree months additional imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
           The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
\nappellant has been falsely implicated in the case. That on the basis of the
\nevidence available on record the offence for which the accused has been
\nconvicted is not made out. That the applicant is neither named in the
\nF.I.R. nor he was put up for identification and there is no evidence to
\nconnect him with the crime in question. That only evidence against him
\nis the alleged recovery of golden bangles. It has further been contended
\nthat the alleged recovery is also doubtful as arrest of the applicant after
\nwhich recovery is said to have been made out was held doubtful in the
\njudgment of S.T.No.896 of 2006 wherein the appellant was acquitted. It
\nis also submitted that P.W.-1 Smt. Vinita Chandra has stated in her
\nevidence that applicant was previously known to her but even then
\napplicant was not named in the F.I.R. That the appellant       was on bail
\nduring trial and there is nothing on record to show that he has misused
\nthe liberty of bail and he has every hope of success in appeal.\n<\/p>\n
           Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.\n<\/p>\n
           Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
\nThe submissions made above by the learned counsel for the appellant
\nhave substance and as such having regard to the submissions and nature
\nof the evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial and probability
\nfactor of the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant may be released
\non bail during the pendency of appeal by suspending sentence of
\nimprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
           Let the appellant be released on bail during the pendency of
\nappeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like
\namount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided the appellant
\ndeposits    fine imposed on him by the trial court.     On furnishing the
\nrequired bonds and on depositing the amount of fine, the operation of the
\nsentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of
\nappeal.<\/p>\n
\n28.1.2010\/Tripathi\n                                                                 Court No.5\n\n\n                      Criminal Appeal No.2946 of 2009\nArif alias Modi                                                ...Appellant\n                                     Vs.\nThe State of U.P.                                       .........Opp. Party\n\n\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/pre>\n
            Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the prayer for bail,
\nlearned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
            In S.T.No.1167 of 2006(Crime No.359 of 2005), appellant Arif
\nalias Modi     has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 395,397
\nand 412 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 395
\nI.P.C. is ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000\/-
\nand in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months
\nadditional imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
            Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant
\nhas been falsely implicated in the case. That on the basis of the evidence
\navailable on record the offence for which the accused has been convicted
\nis not made out. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the
\nappellant that there is no reliable evidence against the applicant. That
\nthe   applicant is neither named in the F.I.R. nor he was put up for
\nidentification and there is no evidence to connect him with the crime in
\nquestion.     That only evidence against him is the alleged recovery of
\ngolden chain. It has further been contended that the alleged recovery is
\nalso doubtful as arrest of the applicant after which recovery is said to
\nhave been made out was held doubtful in the judgment of S.T.No.896 of
\n2006 wherein the appellant was acquitted. It was further submitted that
\nappellant Arif was allegedly arrested by the police on 8.9.2005 while
\ntelegram regarding his arrest was given on 6.9.2005, much earlier the
\ndate of alleged arrest and recovery.       It was also submitted that the
\nappellant was on bail during trial and there is nothing on record to show
\nthat he has misused the liberty of bail and he has every hope of success
\nin this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
            Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.\n<\/p>\n
            Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
\nThe submissions made above by the learned counsel for the appellant
\nhave substance and as such having regard to the submissions and nature
\nof the evidence adduced by the prosecution during trial and probability
\nfactor of the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant may be released
\non bail during the pendency of appeal by suspending sentence of
\nimprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
            Let the appellant be released on bail during the pendency of
\nappeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like
\namount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided the appellant
\n                                  :2:<\/span><\/p>\n
deposits    fine imposed on him by the trial court.   On furnishing the
\nrequired bonds and on depositing the amount of fine, the operation of the
\nsentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of
\nappeal.<\/p>\n
\n28.1.2010\nTripathi\n                                                               Court No.5\n                     Criminal Appeal No.3026 of 2009\nRaju                                                        ...Appellant\n                                    Vs.\nThe State of U.P.                                         .........Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the prayer for bail,
\nlearned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
           In S.T.No.1166 of 2006(Crime No. 359 of 2005), the appellant
\nRaju   has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 395, 397 and
\n412 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 395
\nI.P.C. is ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000\/-
\nand in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months
\nadditional imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
           The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
\nappellant has been falsely implicated in the case. That on the basis of the
\nevidence available on record the offence for which the accused has been
\nconvicted is not made out. It has been contended by the learned counsel
\nfor the appellant that there is no reliable evidence against the applicant.
\nThat the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and only evidence against
\nhim is the alleged recovery of mobile, which has not been described in
\nthe F.I.R. and no Sim number of the mobile was given in the F.I.R. and it
\nis common article. It was further contended that the appellant was put up
\nfor identification before the three witnesses but none of them could
\nidentify him. That the appellant was on bail during trial and there is
\nnothing on record to show that he has misused the liberty of bail and he
\nhas every hope of success in appeal, so he deserves bail.\n<\/p>\n
           Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.\n<\/p>\n
           Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.      In
\nview of the above facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to
\nthe nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, I
\nam of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail during the
\npendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each
\nin the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided he
\ndeposits fine imposed by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
           The operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain
\nsuspended during the pendency of appeal, on furnishing bail bonds and
\ndeposit of fine.<\/p>\n
\n28.1.2010\nTripathi\n                                                                 Court No.5\n                       Criminal Appeal No.3029 of 2009\nJaved and another                                    ...Appellants\n                                    Vs.\nThe State of U.P.                                        .........Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellants on the prayer for bail,
\nlearned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
           In S.T.No.1166 of 2006(Crime No.359 of 2005), the appellants
\nJaved and Sharik Hussain@ Poot @ Pootar         have     been convicted and
\nsentenced     under Sections 395 and 397 I.P.C. The maximum sentence
\nawarded to      them     under Section 395 I.P.C. is ten years rigorous
\nimprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000\/- and in default of payment of
\nfine to further undergo three months additional imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
           The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the
\nappellants have been falsely implicated in the case. That on the basis of
\nthe evidence available on record the offence for which the accused have
\nbeen convicted is not made out. That the evidence adduced by the
\nprosecution in support of the prosecution case is not reliable one. It has
\nfurther been contended that the appellants Javed and Sharik Hussain @
\nPoot @ Pootar were put up for identification before three witnesses but
\nnone of them could identify him and there is no other evidence against
\nthem.   That the appellants were on bail during trial and there is nothing
\non record to show that they ever misused the liberty of bail and they
\nhave every hope of success in appeal, and as such they deserve bail.\n<\/p>\n
           Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.\n<\/p>\n
           Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.        It
\nreveals from perusal of the record that appellants Javed and Sharik
\nHussain @ Poot @ Pootar were put up for identification before three
\nwitnesses but none could identify them and they were also not named in
\nthe F.I.R. and no article is alleged to have been recovered from their
\npossession.\n<\/p>\n
           In view of the above facts and circumstances of           the case,
\nhaving regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the
\nprobability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released
\non bail during the pendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a
\npersonal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the
\nsatisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided they deposit fine imposed
\nby the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the
\noperation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during
\nthe pendency of appeal.<\/p>\n
\n28.1.2010\nTripathi\n                                                                Court No.5\n                      Criminal Appeal No.2749 of 2009\nAbhai Raj Singh                                      ...Appellant\n                                    Vs.\nThe State of U.P.                                       .........Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the prayer for bail,
\nlearned A.G. A. and perused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
           In S.T.No.82 of 1999    (Crime No. 80 of 1999, Police Station
\nKotwali Nagar, Barabanki), the appellant Abhai Raj Singh has           been
\nconvicted and sentenced under Sections 376         I.P.C. for a period of ten
\nyears rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000\/- and in default
\nof payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
\nof one year.\n<\/p>\n
           The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
\nappellant has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
\nevidence against the appellant. That prosecutrix is a married and major
\nwoman and the prosecution story as put forward is not probable. That as
\nper prosecution version the prosecutrix was taken forcibly in a sugar
\ncane field     where the rape is alleged to have been committed but         no
\nexternal mark of injury was found at the time of medical examination
\nwhich belies the prosecution version. It is further submitted that the
\nappellant was on bail during trial and there is nothing on record to show
\nthat   he ever misused the liberty of bail and       he has   every hope of
\nsuccess in appeal, and as such he deserves bail.\n<\/p>\n
           Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.\n<\/p>\n
           Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
\nAdmittedly, the prosecutrix is a major and married woman. At the time of
\nmedical examination, no mark of injury was found on her person, even
\nthough it is alleged that she was forcibly taken in the sugar cane field.
\nIn view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having regard to
\nthe nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, I
\nam of the opinion that the appellant can be released on bail during the
\npendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each
\nin the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided
\nthey deposit fine imposed by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and
\ndeposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall
\nremain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
\n29.1.2010
\nTripathi
\n Hon’ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
           Heard the parties.\n<\/p>\n
           The   appeal     is    admitted    for\nhearing.\n           Summon     the        record    within\nfifteen days.\n           List the appeal thereafter for\nhearing on the prayer for bail.\n           Objection against the prayer for\nbail, if any, may be filed by             learned\nA.G.A. in the meantime.\n\n\n29.1.2010\nTripathi\n                                                              Court No.5\n\n\n                    Criminal Appeal No.2617 of 2009\n\n\nRaj Kamal Singh and others.                               ...Appellants\n                                   Vs.\nState of U.P.                                       .........Opp. Party\n\n\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
          Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A on
\nthe prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
          In S.T.No.441 of 2008 (Crime No.171 of 2007), Police Station
\nMakhi, District Unnao, the appellants Raj Kamal Singh, Chhanga Singh,
\nNan Singh and Gora Singh have been convicted and sentenced           under
\nSections 307\/34, 504 and 506 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to
\nthem is     eight years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of
\nRs.8,000\/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for a period of six months rigorous imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
          Prayer for bail on behalf of appellant no.1 Raj Kamal Singh has
\nnot been pressed at this stage. Therefore, it is refused at this stage as
\nnot pressed.\n<\/p>\n
          In regard to appellants Chhanga Singh, Nan Singh and Gora
\nSingh, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants
\nthat they have been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
\nevidence against the appellants. That the role of causing fatal injury to
\nVinod Kumar by fire arm has been assigned to Raj Kamal Singh and no
\nrole of causing injury has been assigned to them. That it has further been
\ncontended that there is no reliable evidence to connect the appellants
\nwith the crime in question and their participation in the incident is not
\nproved beyond doubt.     That the appellants were on bail during trial and
\nthere is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the liberty of
\nbail and they have every hope of success in appeal, and as such they
\ndeserve bail.\n<\/p>\n
          Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, it has been
\nconceded that the role of causing injury to Vinod Kumar, has been
\nassigned to Raj Kamal Singh and role of causing injury was not assigned
\nto the appellants Chhanga Singh, Nan Singh and Gora Singh.\n<\/p>\n
          Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
\nThere is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
\nappellants. In view of all these facts and circumstances of      the case,
\nhaving regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the
\nprobability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellants Chhanga Singh,
\nNan Singh and Gora Singh can be released on bail during the pendency
\nof appeal on furnishing by each of them a        personal bond with two
\n sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M.
\nconcerned provided they deposit      fine imposed by the trial court. On
\nfurnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of
\nimprisonment    against   these three appellants shall remain suspended
\nduring the pendency of appeal.<\/p>\n
\n29.1.2010\nTripathi\n                                                                   Court No. 5<\/span>\n                      Criminal Appeal No. 2566 of 2009\nRamu and another                                  Appellants\n                            Vs.\nState of U.P.                                     Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. on
\nthe prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
           In S.T.No.752 of 2007 (Crime No. 257 of 2007,Police Station
\nBiswan,Sitapur), the appellants Ramu and Kialsh have been convicted
\nand   sentenced     under   Section   304\/34   I.P.C.   to   undergo   rigorous
\nimprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.5000\/- and in
\ndefault of payment of fine to further undergo six months’              rigorous
\nimprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
           Prayer for bail on behalf of appellant no.1 Ramu has not been
\npressed at this stage. Therefore, it is refused at this stage as not pressed.\n<\/p>\n
           It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that
\nthey have been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
\nevidence against them on the basis of which they could have been
\nconvicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 I.P.C. It has
\nfurther been contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is
\nnot reliable. He further submitted that appellant Kailash has been
\nassigned the role of catching hold only and the main role of causing fatal
\ninjuries has been assigned to Ramu. That the appellant Kailash was on
\nbail during trial and    there is nothing on record to show that he ever
\nmisused the liberty of bail and he has every hope of success in appeal
\nand as such he deserves bail.\n<\/p>\n
           Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, it has been
\ncontended that Kailash has been assigned the role of catching hold and
\nthe role of causing fatal injuries has been assigned to Ramu.\n<\/p>\n
           Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
\nThere is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
\nappellants.     In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case,
\nhaving regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the
\nprobability factor, I am of the opinion that the appellant Kailash can be
\nreleased on bail during the pendency of bail on furnishing a personal
\nbond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
\nC.J.M. concerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court.
\nOn furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the
\nsentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of
\nappeal qua the appellant Kailash.<\/p>\n
\n29.1.2010\nTripathi\n                                                                  Court No. 5<\/span>\n                     Criminal Appeal No. 1755 of 2009\nUjagar                                           Appellant\n                           Vs.\nState of U.P.                                    Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on
\nthe prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
           In S.T.No. 66 of 2007 (Crime No.    146 of 2006,Police Station
\nKhairabad, Sitapur ), the appellant Ujagar       has    been convicted and
\nsentenced under Section     376 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment
\nfor a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.3000\/- and in default of
\npayment of fine to further undergo six months’ imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
           It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that
\nhe has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
\nevidence against     him on the basis of which         he   could have been
\nconvicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C. It has
\nfurther been contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is
\nnot reliable. He further submitted that the prosecutrix has attained the
\nage of discretion and is above 18 years of age and she in her statement
\nhas deposed that she had relation with the appellant Ujagar since last
\none month from the date of incident and, thus, the alleged offence is not
\nmade out against the appellant and the appellant was on bail during trial
\nand there is nothing on record to show that he ever misused the liberty
\nof bail and he has every hope of success in appeal and as such he
\ndeserves bail.\n<\/p>\n
           Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.\n<\/p>\n
           Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
\nThere is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
\nappellant. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having
\nregard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability
\nfactor, I am of the opinion that the appellant    can be released on bail
\nduring the pendency of bail on furnishing a personal bond with two
\nsureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M.
\nconcerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court. On
\nfurnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of
\nimprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.<\/p>\n
\n29.1.2010\nTripathi\n                                                             Court No.5\n                    Criminal Appeal No.182 of 2010\nMunna Surti                    .....                       Appellant\n                                Vs.\nState of U.P.                                            ....Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n           Heard the parties\n           The appeal is admitted for hearing\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 Munna Surti has been      convicted in
\nSessions Trial No 503 of 2003 (Case Crime No. 439 of 2002) for the
\noffence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C. and has been
\nsentenced to undergo five months’ s simple imprisonment alongwith
\na fine of Rs. 500\/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
\nfifteen days’ imprisonment . Accused-appellant was      on bail during
\ntrial and presently   he is on interim bail. That there is nothing on
\nrecord to show that he 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 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 upon him by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
  Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant
\nshall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
\n29.1.2010.<\/p>\n
\nTripathi\n                                                             Court No.5\n                    Criminal Appeal No.185 of 2010\nSri Nath and others                                  .....Appellants\n                                 Vs.\nState of U.P.                                           ....Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n           Heard the parties .\n           The appeal is admitted for hearing.\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 Sri Nath, Kalika and Ram Bhawan
\nhave been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 286 of 1996 (Case Crime
\n490 of 1996) for the offence punishable under Sections        323,506
\nI.P.C.   as well as under Section 3(1)(X) S.C. and S.T. Act .The
\nmaximum sentence awarded to them under Section 506 I.P.C. is one
\nyear’s rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000\/- and in
\ndefault of payment of fine to further undergo three months’ simple
\nimprisonment. 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 the
\nabove appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal
\non furnishing by each of them a personal bond with two sureties each
\nin the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned provided
\nthey deposit the fine imposed upon them by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
         Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
\nappellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
\n29.1.2010.<\/p>\n
\nTripathi\n                                                                Court No. 5<\/span>\n                     Criminal Appeal No. 2466 of 2009\nSalauddin                                         Appellant\n                            Vs.\nState of U.P.                                    Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on
\nthe prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
           In S.T.No. 567 A of 2007 (Crime No. 112 of 2006,Police Station
\nThakurganj, Lucknow ), the appellant Salauddin has been convicted and
\nsentenced under Section       307 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment
\nfor a period of six years and a fine of Rs.5000\/- and in default of payment
\nof fine to further undergo five months’ imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
           It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
\nthat   he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
\nevidence against      him on the basis of which      he   could have been
\nconvicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C.         It has
\nfurther been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that in this
\ncase co-accused Mahendra Kumar Gupta and Nasir were acquitted on the
\nsame evidence, on the basis of which the appellant has been convicted.
\nIt was     further stated that initially it was alleged that   injuries were
\ncaused with knife while during trial the knife was converted into Chapar.
\nAll the injuries alleged to have been caused by the appellant were simple
\nin nature and at the most the offence falls under Section 324 I.P.C. only
\nand the appellant has every hope of success in appeal and as such he
\ndeserves bail.\n<\/p>\n
           Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.\n<\/p>\n
           Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
\nThere is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
\nappellant. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having
\nregard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability
\nfactor, I am of the opinion that the appellant     can be released on bail
\nduring the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two
\nsureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M.
\nconcerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court. On
\nfurnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of
\nimprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
\n1.2..2010
\nTripathi
\n                                                                Court No. 5<\/span>
\n                     Criminal Appeal No. 2537 of 2009
\nSmt. Kisana Devi and another                          Appellants
\n                            Vs.\n<\/p>\n
State of U.P.                                          Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. on
\nthe prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
           In S.T.No. 252 of 2003 (Crime No. 121 of 2001,Police Station
\nLalganj, Rae Bareli ), the appellants Smt. Kisana Devi and Sri Ram
\nBahadur have been convicted and sentenced under Sections            363\/366
\nI.P.C.The maximum sentence awarded to them under Section 366 I.P.C. is
\nto undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine
\nof Rs.2000\/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo       one
\nmonth’s imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
           It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants
\nthat      they have been falsely implicated in the case and there is no
\nreliable evidence against    them on the basis of which they could have
\nbeen convicted. It has further been contended that the appellants are not
\nnamed in the F.I.R., though F.I.R. was lodged after inordinate delay of 22
\ndays and as per medical           certificate and in the statement of the
\nprosecutrix the age of the prosecutrix was           about 18 years. That
\nprosecution version is not probable against the appellants and they have
\nevery hope of success in appeal . That the appellants were on bail during
\ntrial and there is nothing on record to show that they ever misused the
\nliberty of bail and as such they deserve bail.\n<\/p>\n
           Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.\n<\/p>\n
           Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
\nThere is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
\nappellant. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having
\nregard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability
\nfactor, I am of the opinion that the appellants can be released on bail
\nduring the pendency of appeal on furnishing by each of them a personal
\nbond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
\nC.J.M. concerned provided they       deposit   the fine imposed by the trial
\ncourt. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the
\nsentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of
\nappeal.<\/p>\n
\n1.2.2010\nTripathi\n                                                              Court No.5\n                     Criminal Appeal No.193 of 2010\nBobby Singh                                               Appellant\n                                           Vs.\nThe State                                                ....Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n            Heard the parties.\n            The appeal is admitted for hearing.\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 Bobby Singh has been convicted in
\nSpecial Session Trial No.76 of 2007 (Case Crime No. 243 of 2006 )
\nfor the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 354 I.P.C. and has
\nbeen sentenced to undergo one year’s              rigorous imprisonment.
\nAccused-appellant was on bail during trial and presently         he is on
\ninterim bail, and there is nothing on record to show that he ever
\nmisused 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 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 upon him by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
  Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant,
\nshall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.<\/p>\n
\n1.2.2010\nTripathi\n                                                               Court No.5\n                    Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2010\nRamu                                              Appellant\n                                          Vs.\nThe State of U.P.                                ....Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n            Heard the parties.\n           The appeal is admitted for hearing.\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 Ramu has been convicted in S.T.No.
\n439 of 2009( Crime No. 489 of 2008) under Section 3\/25 ( 1-b (a)
\nArms Act and sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment along
\nwith a fine of Rs.5000\/- and in default of payment of fine to further
\nundergo additional six months’ rigorous improvement. Accused-
\nappellant was on bail during trial and presently he is on interim bail.
\nThat there is nothing on record to show that he 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 upon him by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
  Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant,
\nshall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.<\/p>\n
\n1.2.2010\nTripathi\n                                                            Court No.5\n                     Criminal Appeal No.198 of 2010\nSmt. Vimla and another                                 Appellants\n                                           Vs.\nThe State                                              ....Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n            Heard the parties.\n            The appeal is admitted for hearing.\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-appellant Smt. Vimla has been      convicted in
\nSession Trial No. 538 of 2007( Case Crime No. 74 of 2002) for the
\noffence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. and maximum
\nsentence awarded to her under Section 366 I.P.C. is three years’
\nrigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 200\/-, in default of
\npayment of fine to further undergo five months’ imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
           The accused-appellant      Kamla has been      convicted in
\nSession Trial No. 484 of 2007( Case Crime No. 74 of 2002) for the
\noffence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. and maximum
\nsentence awarded to her under Section 366 I.P.C. is three years’
\nrigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 200\/-, in default of
\npayment of fine to further undergo five months’ imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
            Accused-appellants were on bail during trial and presently
\nthey are on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that
\nthey 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 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 upon them by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
      Thereafter     the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
\nappellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.<\/p>\n
\n1.2.2010\nTripathi\n                                                              Court No.5\n                      Criminal Appeal No.198 of 2010\nSmt. Vimla and another                                 Appellants\n                                           Vs.\nThe State                                              ....Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n             Heard the parties.\n            The appeal is admitted for hearing.\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-appellant Smt. Vimla has been      convicted in
\nSession Trial No. 538 of 2007( Case Crime No. 74 of 2002) for the
\noffence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. and maximum
\nsentence awarded to her under Section 366 I.P.C. is three years’
\nrigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 200\/-, in default of
\npayment of fine to further undergo five months’ imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
           The accused-appellant      Kamla has been      convicted in
\nSession Trial No. 484 of 2007( Case Crime No. 74 of 2002) for the
\noffence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 I.P.C. and maximum
\nsentence awarded to her under Section 366 I.P.C. is three years’
\nrigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 200\/-, in default of
\npayment of fine to further undergo five months’ imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
            Accused-appellants were on bail during trial and presently
\nthey are on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that
\nthey 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 the
\nabove appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal
\non   furnishing by each of them     a personal bond with two sureties
\neach in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned
\nprovided they         deposit the fine imposed upon them by the trial
\ncourt.\n<\/p>\n
         Thereafter    the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
\nappellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.<\/p>\n
\n1.2.2010\nTripathi\n                                                              Court No.5\n                     Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2010\nPrem Narayan and others                                  Appellants\n                                             Vs.\nState of U.P.                                                  ....Opp.\nParty\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n            Heard the parties.\n           The appeal is admitted for hearing.\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   Prem    Narayan,   Ram   Padarath,
\nBabban and Jabbar have been convicted in S.T.No. 18 of 2009(Crime
\nNo. 3 of 2007) under Sections 323\/34 and 506 I.P.C. The maximum
\nsentence awarded them under Section 506 I.P.C. is two and half years
\nrigorous imprisonment. The 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 the
\nabove appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal
\non furnishing by each of them         a personal bond with two sureties
\neach in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned.\n<\/p>\n
        Thereafter   the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
\nappellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.<\/p>\n
\n1.2.2010\nTripathi\n                                                            Court No.5\n                     Criminal Appeal No.197 of 2010\nJagannath and others                                  Appellants\n                                           Vs.\nThe State                                              ....Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n            Heard the parties.\n            The appeal is admitted for hearing.\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     Jagannath,Pramod, Shyamu alias
\nBhayanna, Ramesh and Keshav have been convicted in S.T.No. 739 of
\n2007( Crime No. 189 of 2007) under Sections 147,323\/149 I.P.C. The
\nmaximum sentence awarded to them under Section 323\/149 I.P.C. is
\none year’s rigorous imprisonment. The accused -appellants were on
\nbail during trial and presently they are on interim bail. That there is
\nnothing on record 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 the
\nabove appellants be released on bail during the pendency of appeal
\non   furnishing by each of them     a personal bond with two sureties
\neach in the like amount to satisfaction of the court concerned.\n<\/p>\n
      Thereafter     the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
\nappellants, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
\n1.2.2010
\nTripathi
\n  Criminal Appeal No.2177 of 2009
\nPradeep Kumar Kaushal Vs. State of U.P.\n<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
           The order which was passed in this
\ncriminal appeal ,in fact, pertains to Criminal
\nAppeal No. 2178 of 2009.\n<\/p>\n
           The order corrected today.\n<\/p>\n
           List appeal for hearing on prayer for
\nbail in the next cause list along with Criminal
\nAppeal No. 2178 of 2009.\n<\/p>\n
1.2.2010
\nTripathi<\/p>\n
Criminal Appeal No.2225 of 2009
\nMukesh Kumar Kaushal Vs. State of U.P.\n<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/p>\n
           The order which was passed in this
\ncriminal appeal ,in fact, pertains to Criminal
\nAppeal No. 2227 of 2009.\n<\/p>\n
           The order corrected today.\n<\/p>\n
           List appeal for hearing on prayer for
\nbail in the next cause list along with Criminal
\nAppeal No. 2227 of 2009.\n<\/p>\n
1.2.2010
\nTripathi
\n Incharge Computer
\n         I have inadvertently uploaded    wrong oder in Criminal
\nAppeal No. 2227 of 2009 Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. , the order
\ndated   1.2.2010,passed by Hon’ble Vedpal,J. Kindly delete the said
\norder at the earliest.\n<\/p>\n
                                     Shri Prakash Tripathi
\n                                           P.S.<\/p>\n
\n                                         2.2.2010\n                                     EMPLOYEE n No. 2515\n                                                            Court No.5\n                    Criminal Appeal No.208 of 2010\nShishu Pal and others                      Appellants\n                                Vs.\nState of U.P.                              Opp. Party\n.\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n           Heard the parties.\n           The appeal is admitted for hearing.\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 Shishu Pal, Shambhu Yadav and
\nSewak have been convicted under Sections 323\/34,506 I.P.C. and 3
\n(1)(X) S.C. and S.T.Act in Special Session Trial No. 62 of 1999 (Crime
\nNo. 63 of 1998). The     maximum sentence awarded to them under
\nSection     3(1)(X) S.C. and S.T. Act       was one year’s rigorous
\nimprisonment with a fine of Rs.3000\/- on each of them and in default
\nof payment of fine to further undergo fifteen days’ imprisonment and
\nall the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.
\nAccused-appellants were on bail during trial and presently they are
\non interim bail. That there is nothing on record to show that they
\never 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.<\/p>\n
\n2.2.2010\nTripathi\n                                                             Court No.5\n                     Criminal Appeal No.216 of 2010\nRaju                                         Appellant\n                                 Vs.\nState of U.P.                               Opp. Party\n.\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n           Heard the parties.\n            The appeal is admitted for hearing.\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 Raju has been convicted in      S.T.No.
\n401 of 2005 (Crime No. 8 of 1991) under Section 324 I.P.C. and
\nsentenced to two years’ imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000\/-
\nand in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months’
\nsimple imprisonment. The        appellant was on   bail during trial and
\npresently    he is on interim bail. That there is nothing on record to
\nshow that he 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 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 each in the like amount
\nto satisfaction of the court concerned provided he deposits the fine
\nimposed by the trial court.\n<\/p>\n
           Thereafter the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the
\nappellant, shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.<\/p>\n
\n2.2.2010\nTripathi\n                                                               Court No. 5<\/span>\n                     Criminal Appeal No. 2000 of 2009\nSharvan Kumar                                         Appellant\n                           Vs.\nState of U.P.                                         Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on
\nthe prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
           In S.T.No. 1389 of 2008 (Crime No. 223 of 2008) the appellant
\nhas been convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 I.PC. The
\nmaximum sentence awarded to him under Section 376 I.P.C. is seven
\nyears imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000\/- and default       of   of
\npayment of fine to further undergo six months’ simple imprisonment.\n<\/p>\n
           It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
\nthat   he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
\nevidence against     him on the basis of which       he   could have been
\nconvicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C.       It has
\nfurther been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the
\nproscutrix was above 18 years of age at the time of alleged incident as
\nper medical examination. Thus, she had attained the age of discretion and
\nremained with the accused for about four days and she did not raise any
\nalarm at that time. That presently the prosecutrix and the appellant are
\nresiding with each other as a husband and a wife and on the basis of the
\nevidence on record the offence for which the accused-appellant has been
\nconvicted is not made out and the appellant has every hope of success in
\nappeal and as such he deserves bail.\n<\/p>\n
           Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.\n<\/p>\n
           Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
\nThere is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
\nappellant. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having
\nregard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability
\nfactor, I am of the opinion that the appellant    can be released on bail
\nduring the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two
\nsureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M.
\nconcerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court. On
\nfurnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of
\nimprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.
\n2.2..2010
\nTripathi
\n                                                                  Court No. 5<\/span>
\n                      Crl. Misc.An. No.92379 of 2009
\n                             in re
\n                      Criminal Appeal No. 2514 of 2008
\nRajnesh                                                Applicant
\n                            Vs.\n<\/p>\n
State of U.P.                                           Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/pre>\n
                Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.
\non the prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
          In S. T. No. 717 of 2007 ( Crime No. 290\/2007) the appellant
\nRajnesh along with        Hansu has been convicted           for the offence
\npunishable under Sections         366 and 376 (2) G I.P.C. The maximum
\npunishment awarded to them under Section 376 (2) I.P.C. is ten years’
\nimprisonment along with a fine of Rs.4000\/- and in default of payment of
\nfine to further undergo imprisonment of two months.\n<\/p>\n
          It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
\nthat   he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
\nevidence against      him on the basis of which        he   could have been
\nconvicted for the offence for which he has been convicted. It has further
\nbeen   contended by learned counsel for the appellant that co-accused
\nHansu having similar case has already been admitted         to bail by Hon’ble
\nMr. Justice Alok Kumar Singh under his order dated 1.5. 2009 as the
\nallegation of rape was also against the appellant Hansu admitted to bail.
\nIt has further been contended that        as per medical examination the
\nprosecutrix is a major girl and she remained with the accused        for about
\nsix months,but she did not raise any objection while she was living with
\nthe appellant .It has further been contended that the brother of the
\nprosecutrix     himself has deposed in support of the appellant that       his
\nfather wanted to marry his sister with the appellant Rajnesh. That there
\nis every hope of success in appeal and as such appellant deserves bail.\n<\/p>\n
          Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, it is
\nconceded by learned A.G.A. that co -accused has been admitted to bail
\nand the prosecutrix is a major girl.\n<\/p>\n
          Considered the respective submissions made by the parties.
\nThe submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant find support
\nfrom the record. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case,
\nhaving regard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the
\nprobability factor, I am of the opinion that appellant too can be released
\non bail during the pendency of       appeal on furnishing a personal bond
\nwith two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M.
\nconcerned provided he deposits the fine imposed by the trial court. On
\nfurnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the operation of the sentence of
\nimprisonment shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.<\/p>\n
\n2.2..2010\/Tripathi\n                                                                Court No. 5<\/span>\n                     Crl. Misc. An. No.12352 of 2008\n                                in re\n                       Crl. Appeal No.1088 of 2007\nMohd. Sageer                                    Appellant\n                          Vs.\nState of U.P.                                    Opp. Party\n\n\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n<\/pre>\n
           This is an application for stay of the amount of fine till the
\ndisposal of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
           The order granting bail to the appellant was passed on
\n21.1.2008 by Hon’ble Mr Justice K.K.Mishra ( since retired). There must
\nbe sufficient ground to stay the realization of fine while granting bail to
\nthe appellant. No such ground has been shown in the affidavit,
\naccompanying this application.\n<\/p>\n
           No sufficient ground exists for staying the realization of fine.
\nThe application is rejected.<\/p>\n
\n2.2.2010\nTripathi\n                                                                Court No. 5<\/span>\n                     Criminal Appeal No. 857 of 2007\nAnit Kumar Awasthi                               Appellant\n                             Vs.\nState of U.P.                                    Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on
\nthe prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
           In S.T.No. 874 of 2004(Crime No. 417 of 2003) the appellant
\nAnit Kumar Awasthi has been convicted under Sections 498-A and 306
\nI.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded to him under Section 306 I.P.C. is
\nseven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.30,000\/- and in
\ndefault of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for a period
\nof one year.\n<\/p>\n
           It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
\nthat   he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
\nevidence against     him on the basis of which      he    could have been
\nconvicted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 I.P.C.
\nIt has further been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that
\nthe accused-appellant is in jail since the last four and half years and out
\nof maximum sentence awarded to him for a period of seven years, he has
\nundergone substantial portion of the imprisonment. During the trial he
\nwas on bail and he never misused the liberty of bail and the appellant
\nhas every hope of success in appeal and as such he deserves bail.\n<\/p>\n
           Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A. However, it has been
\nconceded by learned A.G.A. that the appellant has undergone substantial
\nportion of his sentence.\n<\/p>\n
            Considered     the respective submissions made by the parties.
\nThere is substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the
\nappellant. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, having
\nregard to the nature of evidence adduced during trial and the probability
\nfactor, I am of the opinion that the appellant    can be released on bail
\nduring the pendency of appeal on furnishing a personal bond with two
\nsureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M.
\nconcerned provided he deposits one-fourth amount of the fine imposed
\non him by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine, the
\noperation of the sentence of imprisonment and realization of rest of the
\namount of fine shall remain suspended during the pendency of appeal.<\/p>\n
\n2.2..2010\nTripathi\n                                                                  Court No. 5<\/span>\n                     Criminal Appeal No. 2442 of 2009\nDeep Narain                                          Appellant\n                           Vs.\nState of U.P.                                           Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
           Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on
\nthe prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
           In S.T.No. 454 of 2003 ( Crime No. 667of 2003) the appellant
\nDeep Narain was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304
\n(2), 308, 323 and 336 I.P.C. The maximum sentence awarded             to him
\nunder Section 304(2) I.P.C.      eight years’ rigorous imprisonment    along
\nwith a fine of Rs.5000\/- and in default of payment of fine to further
\nundergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. All the sentences
\nwere directed to run concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
           It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
\nthat   he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
\nevidence against     him on the basis of which        he   could have been
\nconvicted for the offence for which he has been convicted. It has further
\nbeen contended by learned counsel for the appellant that only            role
\nassigned to the appellant in the FIR is that of exhortation and as per
\nprosecution version fatal injury to the deceased was not caused by Deep
\nNarayan and the appellant is about 85 years of age and the probability
\nfactors eco against the prosecution version and the appellant has every
\nhope of success in appeal and as such he deserves bail.\n<\/p>\n
           Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.\n<\/p>\n
           Considered the respective submissions made by the parties. In
\nthe F.I.R. only role of exhortation has been assigned to the appellant. The
\nappellant is 85 years of age. The submissions of the learned counsel for
\nthe appellant find support from the record. In view of all these facts and
\ncircumstances of the case, having regard to the nature of evidence
\nadduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of the opinion that
\nthe appellant can be released on bail during the pendency of appeal on
\nfurnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to
\nthe satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided he deposits the fine
\nimposed by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit of fine,
\nthe operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain suspended
\nduring the pendency of appeal.<\/p>\n
\n2.2..2010\nTripathi\n                                                                Court No. 5<\/span>\n                      Criminal Appeal No. 540 of 2009\nTaslim                                           Appellant\n                             Vs.\nState of U.P.                                    Opp. Party\nHon'ble Vedpal,J.\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
            Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on
\nthe prayer for bail and perused the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
            In S.T.No. 349 of 2003(Crime No. 251 of 2002) the appellant
\nTaslim     along with two others has been convicted for the offence
\npunishable under Section 307 and        324   I.P.C. The maximum sentence
\nawarded to him under Section 307 I.P.C. is seven years’ rigorous
\nimprisonment      with a fine of Rs.5000\/- and in default of payment of fine
\nto undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.\n<\/p>\n
            It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
\nthat     he has been falsely implicated in the case and there is no reliable
\nevidence against      him on the basis of which       he   could have been
\nconvicted for the offences for which he has been convicted           It has
\nfurther been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that Taslim is
\nsaid to have been armed with rifle during the incident but no injury
\ncaused by fire of rifle was found on the person of Nirmal Singh and all
\nthe injuries were found to have been caused from the firing of gun as in
\nthe X-ray examination pellets were found. It has further been submitted
\nthat injured Nirmal, who sustained gun shot injuries, had also stated that
\nunknown person had        made fire on him with gun and thus there is no
\nevidence to connect       Taslim with the present case. It has further been
\nsubmitted that after investigation of the case final report was submitted
\nagainst Taslim and he was summoned to face trial under the provisions of
\nSection 319 Cr.P.C. and the appellant has every hope of success in appeal
\nand as such he deserves bail.\n<\/p>\n
            Bail has been opposed by learned A.G.A.\n<\/p>\n
             Considered    the respective submissions made by the parties.
\nThe contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant find support from
\nthe evidence on record. In view of the above, having regard to the nature
\nof evidence adduced during trial and the probability factor, I am of the
\nopinion that the appellant can be released on bail during the pendency of
\nappeal on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like
\namount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. concerned provided he deposits
\nthe fine imposed by the trial court. On furnishing bail bonds and deposit
\nof fine, the operation of the sentence of imprisonment shall remain
\nsuspended during the pendency of appeal.\n<\/p>\n
2.2.2010
\nTripathi\n  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court Sharvan Kumar vs The State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2010 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 […]<\/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-37951","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSharvan Kumar vs The State Of U.P. on 2 February, 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\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sharvan Kumar vs The State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-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=\"2010-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-23T20:29:57+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=\"87 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sharvan Kumar vs The State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-23T20:29:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":16575,\"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\\\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Sharvan Kumar vs The State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-23T20:29:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sharvan Kumar vs The State Of U.P. on 2 February, 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":"Sharvan Kumar vs The State Of U.P. on 2 February, 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\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sharvan Kumar vs The State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-23T20:29:57+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":"87 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sharvan Kumar vs The State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-23T20:29:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010"},"wordCount":16575,"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\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010","name":"Sharvan Kumar vs The State Of U.P. on 2 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-23T20:29:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sharvan-kumar-vs-the-state-of-u-p-on-2-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sharvan Kumar vs The State Of U.P. on 2 February, 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\/37951","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=37951"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/37951\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37951"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=37951"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=37951"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}