High Court

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. (C.M. Application No.1 of 2024 : First Bail Application)

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/ appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This is an application seeking suspension of sentence preferred by the applicant/ appellant, Ram Sagar Mishra, who has been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 59 of 2011 titled as State of U.P. vs. Babbu alias Arun Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 0484 of 2010, under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Utraula, District Balrampur, whereby the appellant/ applicant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.40,000/- for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo one year's simple imprisonment. The appellant/ applicant has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo three months' additional imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant has submitted that according to the prosecution story, the deceased, who is a young boy aged about 22 years named Vishesher is stated to have been taken away by co-accused/ co-convict Babbu @ Arun Kumar on 14.08.2010 in respect of which, F.I.R. was lodged on 19.08.2010.

4. His next submission is that entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence wherein the present appellant/ applicant has come to be convicted against the weight of evidence despite absence of any admissible evidence against him. In the same breath, his submission is that there is no such complete chain of evidence against the present appellant/ applicant which points at the guilt of the present appellant/ applicant only.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant has also drawn attention of the Court to the testimonies of P.W.1- Vimlawati @ Chireta, the mother of deceased as also P.W.4- Vidyaram @ Vidyasagar and has submitted that even these alleged witnesses of last seen have not stated that the present appellant/ applicant was seen in the company of the deceased before the dead body of the deceased was found.

6. His further submission is that cause of death of the deceased is due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem strangulation. However, there is no one who had seen the appellant/ applicant causing death of the deceased by strangulating him.

7. His further submission is that the appellant/ applicant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to him. He has further submitted that the appellant/ applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 30.03.2024.

8. His further submission is that the appellant/ applicant is aged about 80 years, whose case is distinguishable from the other co-convicts, therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail keeping in view his advance age and in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Ari vs. State of West Bengal : (2009) 11 SCC 363.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant has concluded his submission by submitting that, in case, the accused appellant/ applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall also fully cooperate with the Court in getting the present criminal appeal concluded expeditiously. Therefore, the accused-appellant/ applicant may be enlarged on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the accused-appellant/ applicant and has submitted that the appellant has come to be convicted on the basis of cogent and reliable testimonies of prosecution witnesses. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant/ applicant. Learned A.G.A. has also not been able to dispute the fact that the appellant/ applicant, aged about 80 years, was on bail during trial.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that initially, according to prosecution story itself, the deceased is stated to have gone with one of the co-accused/co-convict Babbu @ Arun Kumar on 14.08.2010 whereas the first information report in respect of death of deceased came to be registered on 19.08.2010. P.W.1 and P.W.4 have stated that they had seen the deceased with the co-accused/ co-convict Babbu @ Arun Kumar only. The appellant/ applicant is aged about 80 years, who was on bail during trial and there is no instance of any misuse of liberty granted to him. The appellant is in jail since 30.03.2024 and he has no criminal history.

12. Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of this case and also keeping in view the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, a case for bail is made out. The instant application seeking suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant/ applicant is, thus, allowed.

13. Let the applicant/ appellant, Ram Sagar Mishra be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions :- (i) The appellant/ applicant shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking any adjournment. (ii) The appellant/ applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

15. Half of the fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall remain stayed, but, the remaining half shall be deposited by the appellant/ applicant within a period of one month from the date of his release, failing which, the bail granted to the appellant/ applicant shall stand cancelled and he shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentence.

16. It is made clear that this Court has, however, not made any observation on the merits of the appeal.

17. As soon as personal bond and sureties are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the trial court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal. (order on appeal)

18. Office is directed to prepare the typed paper book in this case and provide a copy of the same to learned counsel for the parties as per rules of the Court.

19. List this appeal in the month of March, 2025.

20. If any bail applications are pending in the connected appeals the same can be heard in the interregnum as and when listed. Order Date :- 8.1.2025/Shubhankar

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. (C.M. Application No.1 of 2024 : First Bail Application)

1. Heard Sri Siddharth Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/ appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This is an application seeking suspension of sentence preferred by the applicant/ appellant, Ram Sagar Mishra, who has been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 59 of 2011 titled as State of U.P. vs. Babbu alias Arun Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 0484 of 2010, under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 201 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Utraula, District Balrampur, whereby the appellant/ applicant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.40,000/- for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo one year's simple imprisonment. The appellant/ applicant has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo three months' additional imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant has submitted that according to the prosecution story, the deceased, who is a young boy aged about 22 years named Vishesher is stated to have been taken away by co-accused/ co-convict Babbu @ Arun Kumar on 14.08.2010 in respect of which, F.I.R. was lodged on 19.08.2010.

4. His next submission is that entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence wherein the present appellant/ applicant has come to be convicted against the weight of evidence despite absence of any admissible evidence against him. In the same breath, his submission is that there is no such complete chain of evidence against the present appellant/ applicant which points at the guilt of the present appellant/ applicant only.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant has also drawn attention of the Court to the testimonies of P.W.1- Vimlawati @ Chireta, the mother of deceased as also P.W.4- Vidyaram @ Vidyasagar and has submitted that even these alleged witnesses of last seen have not stated that the present appellant/ applicant was seen in the company of the deceased before the dead body of the deceased was found.

6. His further submission is that cause of death of the deceased is due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem strangulation. However, there is no one who had seen the appellant/ applicant causing death of the deceased by strangulating him.

7. His further submission is that the appellant/ applicant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to him. He has further submitted that the appellant/ applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 30.03.2024.

8. His further submission is that the appellant/ applicant is aged about 80 years, whose case is distinguishable from the other co-convicts, therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail keeping in view his advance age and in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Ari vs. State of West Bengal : (2009) 11 SCC 363.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant has concluded his submission by submitting that, in case, the accused appellant/ applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall also fully cooperate with the Court in getting the present criminal appeal concluded expeditiously. Therefore, the accused-appellant/ applicant may be enlarged on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the accused-appellant/ applicant and has submitted that the appellant has come to be convicted on the basis of cogent and reliable testimonies of prosecution witnesses. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant/ applicant. Learned A.G.A. has also not been able to dispute the fact that the appellant/ applicant, aged about 80 years, was on bail during trial.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that initially, according to prosecution story itself, the deceased is stated to have gone with one of the co-accused/co-convict Babbu @ Arun Kumar on 14.08.2010 whereas the first information report in respect of death of deceased came to be registered on 19.08.2010. P.W.1 and P.W.4 have stated that they had seen the deceased with the co-accused/ co-convict Babbu @ Arun Kumar only. The appellant/ applicant is aged about 80 years, who was on bail during trial and there is no instance of any misuse of liberty granted to him. The appellant is in jail since 30.03.2024 and he has no criminal history.

12. Thus, having regard to overall facts and circumstances of this case and also keeping in view the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, a case for bail is made out. The instant application seeking suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant/ applicant is, thus, allowed.

13. Let the applicant/ appellant, Ram Sagar Mishra be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions :- (i) The appellant/ applicant shall cooperate in the early disposal of appeal without seeking any adjournment. (ii) The appellant/ applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

15. Half of the fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall remain stayed, but, the remaining half shall be deposited by the appellant/ applicant within a period of one month from the date of his release, failing which, the bail granted to the appellant/ applicant shall stand cancelled and he shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentence.

16. It is made clear that this Court has, however, not made any observation on the merits of the appeal.

17. As soon as personal bond and sureties are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the trial court concerned to be kept on record of this appeal. (order on appeal)

18. Office is directed to prepare the typed paper book in this case and provide a copy of the same to learned counsel for the parties as per rules of the Court.

19. List this appeal in the month of March, 2025.

20. If any bail applications are pending in the connected appeals the same can be heard in the interregnum as and when listed. Order Date :- 8.1.2025/Shubhankar