High Court

Appellant :- Smt. Bindeshwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy, Home Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Pramod Shanker Shukla,Rajiv Misra,Ranjan Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. (Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1/2024: First Bail Application)

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of instant application, the appellant/ applicant, Smt Bindeshwari, seeks suspension of sentence awarded to the appellant while convicting her in Session Trial No. 30 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 888 of 2014 under Section 147, 148, 364, 324/34, 326/34, 302/34, 201, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Barasagvar, District Unnao and sentencing her under Section 147 I.P.C. for two years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000, for offence under Section 148 I.P.C. three years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/, for offence under Sections 324/34 three years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/-, for offence under Section 326/34 ten years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, for offence under Section 364 I.P.C. ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, for offence under Section 302/34/120-B life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20000/- and for offence under Section 201 I.P.C. four years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has submitted that the appellant/applicant is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in this case due to some ulterior reasons.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/applicant that the conviction of the present appellant has been recorded against the weight of evidence.

5. His further submission is that all four accused persons were tried by the learned trial court, however on the same set of evidence, the co- accused, Mahaveer, who is named in the first information report, has been acquitted by the learned trial court.

6. His next submission is that so far as the present appellant/applicant is concerned, she is a lady, to whom no specific role was assigned in the written report submitted by the first informant. He has drawn attention of this Court that to the fact the conviction of the appellant is based on the finding of the trial court to the effect that there is evidence against the appellant of hatching conspiracy to kill the deceased, therefore, also her case is distinguishable from that of other co- accused persons. However in the same breath he has drawn attention of this Court to the fact that the learned trial court has itself observed in paragraph no. 49 of the impugned judgment that the Call Detail Report has not been proved in accordance with Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, therefore, the same is not admissible in evidence. He, thus, submits that in the aforesaid factual situation, the impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.2024 is patently illegal and unsustainable, present appellant/applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal. therefore,

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant further submits that the appellant was on bail during trial and she never misused the liberty of bail granted to her.

8. His further submission is that the accused- appellant/applicant is languishing in jail since 29.03.2024, who has no previous criminal history.

9. His next submission is that there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future as the paper-book in this case is not ready, therefore, the accused-appellant/applicant may be enlarged on bail during pendency of this appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has concluded his submission by submitting that, in case, the accused-appellant/applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and she shall also fully co-operate with this Court in getting the present criminal appeal concluded expeditiously.

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant has been convicted by means of a reasoned and well discussed judgment, therefore, the appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail, however, he has not disputed the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of record, it transpires that no specific role was assigned appellant/applicant. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. The learned trial court has itself observed in paragraph no.49 of the impugned judgment that the Call Detail Report has not been proved in accordance with Section 65B The appellant/applicant is a lady, who was on bail during trial and there is nothing on record to show that she misused the liberty of bail granted to her during trial. The applicant/appellant is in jail since 29.03.2024, who has no previous criminal history. Indian Evidence Act,

13. Thus, in the aforesaid oral facts and circumstances of the case, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, we are of the considered view the present appellant/applicant is deserved to be enlarged on bail. The application for suspension of sentence is, thus, allowed. Let the appellant/applicant- Smt 14. Bindeshwari convicted and sentenced in in Session Trial No. 30 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 888 of 2014 under Section 147, 148, 364, 324/34, 326/34, 302/34, 201, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Barasagvar, District Unnao be released on bail during the pendency of this appeal on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in 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.

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

16. It is directed that half of the fine imposed upon the appellant by learned trial court concerned vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.2024 shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal, but, remaining half of the fine shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date she is released on bail under this order, failing which, the bail granted to the appellant shall stand cancelled and she shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentence.

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

18. 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 memo of appeal)

19. List this matter on 13.02.2025. Order Date :- 2.1.2025 Arvind

Appellant :- Smt. Bindeshwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy, Home Lko. Counsel for Appellant :- Pramod Shanker Shukla,Rajiv Misra,Ranjan Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. (Order on Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1/2024: First Bail Application)

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of instant application, the appellant/ applicant, Smt Bindeshwari, seeks suspension of sentence awarded to the appellant while convicting her in Session Trial No. 30 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 888 of 2014 under Section 147, 148, 364, 324/34, 326/34, 302/34, 201, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Barasagvar, District Unnao and sentencing her under Section 147 I.P.C. for two years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000, for offence under Section 148 I.P.C. three years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/, for offence under Sections 324/34 three years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/-, for offence under Section 326/34 ten years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, for offence under Section 364 I.P.C. ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, for offence under Section 302/34/120-B life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 20000/- and for offence under Section 201 I.P.C. four years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has submitted that the appellant/applicant is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in this case due to some ulterior reasons.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/applicant that the conviction of the present appellant has been recorded against the weight of evidence.

5. His further submission is that all four accused persons were tried by the learned trial court, however on the same set of evidence, the co- accused, Mahaveer, who is named in the first information report, has been acquitted by the learned trial court.

6. His next submission is that so far as the present appellant/applicant is concerned, she is a lady, to whom no specific role was assigned in the written report submitted by the first informant. He has drawn attention of this Court that to the fact the conviction of the appellant is based on the finding of the trial court to the effect that there is evidence against the appellant of hatching conspiracy to kill the deceased, therefore, also her case is distinguishable from that of other co- accused persons. However in the same breath he has drawn attention of this Court to the fact that the learned trial court has itself observed in paragraph no. 49 of the impugned judgment that the Call Detail Report has not been proved in accordance with Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, therefore, the same is not admissible in evidence. He, thus, submits that in the aforesaid factual situation, the impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.2024 is patently illegal and unsustainable, present appellant/applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal. therefore,

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant further submits that the appellant was on bail during trial and she never misused the liberty of bail granted to her.

8. His further submission is that the accused- appellant/applicant is languishing in jail since 29.03.2024, who has no previous criminal history.

9. His next submission is that there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in the near future as the paper-book in this case is not ready, therefore, the accused-appellant/applicant may be enlarged on bail during pendency of this appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has concluded his submission by submitting that, in case, the accused-appellant/applicant is enlarged on bail, she shall not misuse the liberty of bail and she shall also fully co-operate with this Court in getting the present criminal appeal concluded expeditiously.

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant has been convicted by means of a reasoned and well discussed judgment, therefore, the appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail, however, he has not disputed the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/applicant.

12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of record, it transpires that no specific role was assigned appellant/applicant. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. The learned trial court has itself observed in paragraph no.49 of the impugned judgment that the Call Detail Report has not been proved in accordance with Section 65B The appellant/applicant is a lady, who was on bail during trial and there is nothing on record to show that she misused the liberty of bail granted to her during trial. The applicant/appellant is in jail since 29.03.2024, who has no previous criminal history. Indian Evidence Act,

13. Thus, in the aforesaid oral facts and circumstances of the case, and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, we are of the considered view the present appellant/applicant is deserved to be enlarged on bail. The application for suspension of sentence is, thus, allowed. Let the appellant/applicant- Smt 14. Bindeshwari convicted and sentenced in in Session Trial No. 30 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No. 888 of 2014 under Section 147, 148, 364, 324/34, 326/34, 302/34, 201, 120-B I.P.C., Police Station Barasagvar, District Unnao be released on bail during the pendency of this appeal on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties in 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.

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

16. It is directed that half of the fine imposed upon the appellant by learned trial court concerned vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.2024 shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal, but, remaining half of the fine shall be deposited by the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date she is released on bail under this order, failing which, the bail granted to the appellant shall stand cancelled and she shall be arrested and sent to jail to serve out the sentence.

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

18. 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 memo of appeal)

19. List this matter on 13.02.2025. Order Date :- 2.1.2025 Arvind