Allahabad High Court

Sri Ram State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Versus .....Appellant(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) : : Geeta Singh Rana G.A. Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

1. Heard Ms. Geeta Singh Rana, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1829 of 2024, Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1485 of 2024 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Ms. Geeta Singh Rana, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ram in Criminal Appeal No.1829 of 2024, submits that two appeals have been filed on behalf of appellant Shri Ram, one through his daughter-in-law, Shanti Devi, wife of Sri Ajeet Gautam, bearing Criminal Appeal No.1829 of 2024, and the other through the mother-in-law of appellant, Raj Bahadur, namely, Sumitra, wife of Kashi, bearing Criminal Appeal No.1485 of 2024.

3. She, thus, submits that Criminal Appeal No.1829 of 2024 may be dismissed as not pressed and prays that she may be permitted to argue in the 2 CRLA No. 1485 of 2024 connected Criminal Appeal No.1485 of 2024 on behalf of appellant, Shri Ram. She further undertakes to file a separate power on behalf of appellant, Shri Ram in the said appeal.

4. The learned A.G.A. does not oppose the aforesaid prayer.

5. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 1829 of 2024 is dismissed as not pressed. Consign to record. (C.M. Application No.IA/5 of 2025 filed in Criminal Appeal No.1485 of 2024)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel appellants/applicants submits application modification/correction/amendment has been filed. However, the word "amendment" was inadvertently left out in the caption of the application. Therefore, he seeks permission to correct the caption accordingly.

2. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.

3. In view of the above, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant is permitted to correct the caption of the application.

5. This is an application for amendment in the memo of appeal on the ground that inadvertently, in place of Section 14A(2) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been mentioned in the caption of the appeal. Therefore, he may be permitted to delete the words "374(2) Cr.P.C." and incorporate "14A(2) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989" in its place.

6. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.

7. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed.

8. Let the amendment be incorporated during the course of the day. (C.M. Application No.1 of 2024 filed in Criminal Appeal No.1485 of 2024)

1. Heard Ms. Geeta Singh Rana, learned counsel for appellant no.1, Shri Ram and Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel for appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur and learned A.G.A for the State. 3 CRLA No. 1485 of 2024

2. This is first bail application moved by the appellants, namely, Shri Ram and Raj Bahadur in this criminal appeal, which has been filed against the judgement and order dated 08.04.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act / Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Special Sessions Trial No.165/2001, arising out of Case Crime No.133/2000, under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 302/120-B I.P.C., Police Station Maurawan, District Unnao.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. The informant has given a contradictory evidence as on the one hand he has stated that he has seen the incident and on the other hand he has stated that the incident was informed to him by one Ved Prakash. The incident is of the morning at about 06:00 AM and the informant has stated that the visibility was very low. The informant has also stated that when he reached on the spot of incident, Laxmi Narayan and Nagendra Pathak were present on the spot of incident. Laxmi Narayan has been examined as P.W.-2 and he has turned hostile, whereas Nagendra Pathak has not been produced by the prosecution.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the Investigating Officer, namely, Sri Sabharaj, Deputy Superintendent of Police has also been examined as P.W.-7, who has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not shown the location of the witnesses in the site plan, therefore, the presence of the appellants on the spot itself becomes doubtful. Thus, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that without properly evaluating the evidence on record, conviction has been made and the appellants have been sentenced.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the appellants do not have any criminal history. They were on bail during trial, which was never misused by them and in case the liberty of bail is granted by this Court, the appellants will not misuse the liberty and will ensure the proper assistance to the Court in expeditious disposal of the appeal. Hence, the appellants are entitled to be released on bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. though opposed the prayer but he could not contradict the aforesaid submissions as argued by learned counsel for the appellants.

7. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and the fact that nothing could be pointed out from the other side 4 CRLA No. 1485 of 2024 in regard to the appreciation of evidence by the learned trial court as well as liberty of bail granted during trial, this Court is of the view that the case for bail is made out.

8. Accordingly, the application for bail is allowed.

9. Let the appellants, namely, Shri Ram and Raj Bahadur be enlarged on bail in Special Sessions Trial No.165/2001, arising out of Case Crime No.133/2000, under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 302/120-B I.P.C., Police Station Maurawan, District Unnao on their furnishing of personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) The appellants shall cooperate in the disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (ii) The appellants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

10. As soon as personal bonds 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.

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

12. It is further directed that the appellants shall deposit the amount of fine as awarded by the learned trial court within one month from the date of release. September 18, 2025 A.Dewal (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.)

Sri Ram State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Versus .....Appellant(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) : : Geeta Singh Rana G.A. Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

1. Heard Ms. Geeta Singh Rana, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1829 of 2024, Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1485 of 2024 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Ms. Geeta Singh Rana, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ram in Criminal Appeal No.1829 of 2024, submits that two appeals have been filed on behalf of appellant Shri Ram, one through his daughter-in-law, Shanti Devi, wife of Sri Ajeet Gautam, bearing Criminal Appeal No.1829 of 2024, and the other through the mother-in-law of appellant, Raj Bahadur, namely, Sumitra, wife of Kashi, bearing Criminal Appeal No.1485 of 2024.

3. She, thus, submits that Criminal Appeal No.1829 of 2024 may be dismissed as not pressed and prays that she may be permitted to argue in the 2 CRLA No. 1485 of 2024 connected Criminal Appeal No.1485 of 2024 on behalf of appellant, Shri Ram. She further undertakes to file a separate power on behalf of appellant, Shri Ram in the said appeal.

4. The learned A.G.A. does not oppose the aforesaid prayer.

5. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 1829 of 2024 is dismissed as not pressed. Consign to record. (C.M. Application No.IA/5 of 2025 filed in Criminal Appeal No.1485 of 2024)

1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel appellants/applicants submits application modification/correction/amendment has been filed. However, the word "amendment" was inadvertently left out in the caption of the application. Therefore, he seeks permission to correct the caption accordingly.

2. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.

3. In view of the above, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant is permitted to correct the caption of the application.

5. This is an application for amendment in the memo of appeal on the ground that inadvertently, in place of Section 14A(2) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been mentioned in the caption of the appeal. Therefore, he may be permitted to delete the words "374(2) Cr.P.C." and incorporate "14A(2) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989" in its place.

6. Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the aforesaid prayer.

7. Accordingly, the instant application is allowed.

8. Let the amendment be incorporated during the course of the day. (C.M. Application No.1 of 2024 filed in Criminal Appeal No.1485 of 2024)

1. Heard Ms. Geeta Singh Rana, learned counsel for appellant no.1, Shri Ram and Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel for appellant no.2, Raj Bahadur and learned A.G.A for the State. 3 CRLA No. 1485 of 2024

2. This is first bail application moved by the appellants, namely, Shri Ram and Raj Bahadur in this criminal appeal, which has been filed against the judgement and order dated 08.04.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act / Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Special Sessions Trial No.165/2001, arising out of Case Crime No.133/2000, under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 302/120-B I.P.C., Police Station Maurawan, District Unnao.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. The informant has given a contradictory evidence as on the one hand he has stated that he has seen the incident and on the other hand he has stated that the incident was informed to him by one Ved Prakash. The incident is of the morning at about 06:00 AM and the informant has stated that the visibility was very low. The informant has also stated that when he reached on the spot of incident, Laxmi Narayan and Nagendra Pathak were present on the spot of incident. Laxmi Narayan has been examined as P.W.-2 and he has turned hostile, whereas Nagendra Pathak has not been produced by the prosecution.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the Investigating Officer, namely, Sri Sabharaj, Deputy Superintendent of Police has also been examined as P.W.-7, who has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not shown the location of the witnesses in the site plan, therefore, the presence of the appellants on the spot itself becomes doubtful. Thus, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that without properly evaluating the evidence on record, conviction has been made and the appellants have been sentenced.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the appellants do not have any criminal history. They were on bail during trial, which was never misused by them and in case the liberty of bail is granted by this Court, the appellants will not misuse the liberty and will ensure the proper assistance to the Court in expeditious disposal of the appeal. Hence, the appellants are entitled to be released on bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. though opposed the prayer but he could not contradict the aforesaid submissions as argued by learned counsel for the appellants.

7. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and the fact that nothing could be pointed out from the other side 4 CRLA No. 1485 of 2024 in regard to the appreciation of evidence by the learned trial court as well as liberty of bail granted during trial, this Court is of the view that the case for bail is made out.

8. Accordingly, the application for bail is allowed.

9. Let the appellants, namely, Shri Ram and Raj Bahadur be enlarged on bail in Special Sessions Trial No.165/2001, arising out of Case Crime No.133/2000, under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 302/120-B I.P.C., Police Station Maurawan, District Unnao on their furnishing of personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) The appellants shall cooperate in the disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (ii) The appellants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

10. As soon as personal bonds 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.

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

12. It is further directed that the appellants shall deposit the amount of fine as awarded by the learned trial court within one month from the date of release. September 18, 2025 A.Dewal (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.)