Allahabad High Court

Srivastava Court No. - 27 HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J. As both the both the criminal appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 2173 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal No. 2350 of 2024 have arisen out of the same judgment and order and accused appellants are having similar roles, therefore, both the bail applications of the respective appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. (Order on Appeal)

1. Heard Shri Alok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/applicants and Shri Raj Priya Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the first informant, Shri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2 CRLA No. 2173 of 2024

2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. - First, Gonda, in Sessions Trial No.215 of 2017 "State Vs. Manish Pathak", arising out of FIR/ Case Crime No.605 of 2016, under Sections 307/34, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda, connected with Sessions Trial No.311 of 2017 "State Vs. Arvind Pathak", arising out of Case Crime No.605 of 2016, under Sections 307/34, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda, for convicting and sentencing the appellant under Sections 307/34 and 506 IPC with maximum punishment of 7 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith default fine stipulation.

3. Learned counsel for the first informant states that a criminal revision has also been filed by the first informant against the appellant for enhancement of sentence, which is also pending before this Court.

4. Matter requires consideration.

5. Admit.

6. List the appeal along with connected appeal Criminal Appeal No. 2438 of 2024 for hearing in due course. (Order on Bail Applications of both the cases/ Suspension of Sentence)

7. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants submits that the main accused Manish Pathak, who is stated to be driver of the vehicle by which the victim(s), the nephew of the informant, namely Man Singh and Shubham Singh, were hit in the incident alleged by the prosecution, has already been enlarged on bail by means of the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2438 of 2024, arising out of the same judgment and order.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that according to prosecution version, the incident occurred on 18.10.2016 at about 12:30 P.M., Maan Singh S/o Dev Karan Singh and Shubham Singh S/o Narvadeshwar Singh, nephews of the complainant/ informant, were 3 CRLA No. 2173 of 2024 returning home from Nawabganj market by motorcycle after taking medicine. When they reached eastwards of a primary school, a Tata Safari vehicle bearing Registration No.UP R 9015, which was driven by the co- accused Manish Pathak, came in front of them suddenly. The vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the co-accused Manish Pathak, inside the vehicle, appellants/applicants Arvind Pathak and Ghanshyam Pathak and other co-accused Maen Pathak were sitting and they were armed with weapons. The co-accused Manish Pathak hit the nephews of the informant by his vehicle with an intention to kill them. Both the nephews of the informant were injured in the incident. Their motorcycle got stuck in the Tata Safari, due to which the co-accused Manish Pathak could not get his vehicle free. The injured were rushed to hospital by ambulance where they received treatment subsequently. Injured Shubham Singh, who had received serious injuries in the accident, was shifted to Icon Hospital, Lucknow, on 19.10.2016, where they were put on ventilator and after being managed properly by treatment, they were discharged on 27.10.2016.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants further submits that in the prosecution version, the appellants/applicants have not played any role in inflicting injury to the injured persons. The only allegations against the appellants/applicants are that they were sitting in the vehicle by which the injured were hit. It is further submitted that they were armed with weapons, but it is not alleged that they used those arms in any manner to inflict injuries to the injured persons. It is alleged that the appellants, along with co-accused Manish Pathak, fled away from the scene of incident after the incident. It is next submitted that if the intention of the appellants/applicants would have to been to kill the injured persons, they would have also assaulted them by their respective weapons. The appellants are in judicial custody since 28/06/2024. He next submits that there is no allegation against them for misuse of liberty when they were on bail during trial.

10. He also submits that the appellants are not previously convicted and they undertake to abide by the conditions of bail in case they are granted liberty of bail. The hearing and disposal of the present appeal is not likely 4 CRLA No. 2173 of 2024 to take place in the near future due to heavy docket.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and others versus State of Gujarat, (1999) 4 SCC 421, wherein it was held that when a convicted person is sentenced to fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence should be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances.

12. However, subsequently, in Kishori Lal versus Rupa, (2004) 7 SCC 638, detailed guidelines were issued regarding grant or refusal of bail in a criminal appeal filed against conviction and sentence on which reliance was placed in Om Prakash Sahni versus Jai Shankar Chaudhary and another, (2023) 6 SCC 123 and Asif @ Pasha versus State of U.P. and another, Criminal Appeal No.3409 of 2025 vide judgment dated

06.08.2025.

13. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the offence is of a serious nature and the appellants/applicants were having common intention with the main accused to attempt to kill the injured persons. However, they did not dispute the fact that co-accused Manish Pathak, who has been assigned the major role in the offence, has already been enlarged on bail.

14. Considering rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature and seriousness of the offence, nature of evidence, complicity of the appellants, quantum of sentence awarded to the appellants, totality of facts and circumstances of the case and period of incarceration of the appellants, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and also in view of the fact that these are the new appeals and its hearing and disposal is not likely to take place in near future, I find it a fit case for grant of bail.

15. Let the appellants/ applicants, Ghanshyam Pathak, Arvind Pathak and Maen Bahadur Pathak, convicted and sentenced in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the 5 CRLA No. 2173 of 2024 condition that the appellants shall cooperate in early disposal of present appeal and no unduly adjournment will be sought on their behalf.

16. As regards fine, it is directed that half of the amount shall be deposited by the appellants before their release from jail pursuant to present bail order and remaining half shall be remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. December 17, 2025 Raj (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

Srivastava Court No. - 27 HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J. As both the both the criminal appeals i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 2173 of 2024 and Criminal Appeal No. 2350 of 2024 have arisen out of the same judgment and order and accused appellants are having similar roles, therefore, both the bail applications of the respective appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. (Order on Appeal)

1. Heard Shri Alok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/applicants and Shri Raj Priya Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the first informant, Shri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2 CRLA No. 2173 of 2024

2. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C. - First, Gonda, in Sessions Trial No.215 of 2017 "State Vs. Manish Pathak", arising out of FIR/ Case Crime No.605 of 2016, under Sections 307/34, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda, connected with Sessions Trial No.311 of 2017 "State Vs. Arvind Pathak", arising out of Case Crime No.605 of 2016, under Sections 307/34, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda, for convicting and sentencing the appellant under Sections 307/34 and 506 IPC with maximum punishment of 7 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith default fine stipulation.

3. Learned counsel for the first informant states that a criminal revision has also been filed by the first informant against the appellant for enhancement of sentence, which is also pending before this Court.

4. Matter requires consideration.

5. Admit.

6. List the appeal along with connected appeal Criminal Appeal No. 2438 of 2024 for hearing in due course. (Order on Bail Applications of both the cases/ Suspension of Sentence)

7. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants submits that the main accused Manish Pathak, who is stated to be driver of the vehicle by which the victim(s), the nephew of the informant, namely Man Singh and Shubham Singh, were hit in the incident alleged by the prosecution, has already been enlarged on bail by means of the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2438 of 2024, arising out of the same judgment and order.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that according to prosecution version, the incident occurred on 18.10.2016 at about 12:30 P.M., Maan Singh S/o Dev Karan Singh and Shubham Singh S/o Narvadeshwar Singh, nephews of the complainant/ informant, were 3 CRLA No. 2173 of 2024 returning home from Nawabganj market by motorcycle after taking medicine. When they reached eastwards of a primary school, a Tata Safari vehicle bearing Registration No.UP R 9015, which was driven by the co- accused Manish Pathak, came in front of them suddenly. The vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the co-accused Manish Pathak, inside the vehicle, appellants/applicants Arvind Pathak and Ghanshyam Pathak and other co-accused Maen Pathak were sitting and they were armed with weapons. The co-accused Manish Pathak hit the nephews of the informant by his vehicle with an intention to kill them. Both the nephews of the informant were injured in the incident. Their motorcycle got stuck in the Tata Safari, due to which the co-accused Manish Pathak could not get his vehicle free. The injured were rushed to hospital by ambulance where they received treatment subsequently. Injured Shubham Singh, who had received serious injuries in the accident, was shifted to Icon Hospital, Lucknow, on 19.10.2016, where they were put on ventilator and after being managed properly by treatment, they were discharged on 27.10.2016.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants further submits that in the prosecution version, the appellants/applicants have not played any role in inflicting injury to the injured persons. The only allegations against the appellants/applicants are that they were sitting in the vehicle by which the injured were hit. It is further submitted that they were armed with weapons, but it is not alleged that they used those arms in any manner to inflict injuries to the injured persons. It is alleged that the appellants, along with co-accused Manish Pathak, fled away from the scene of incident after the incident. It is next submitted that if the intention of the appellants/applicants would have to been to kill the injured persons, they would have also assaulted them by their respective weapons. The appellants are in judicial custody since 28/06/2024. He next submits that there is no allegation against them for misuse of liberty when they were on bail during trial.

10. He also submits that the appellants are not previously convicted and they undertake to abide by the conditions of bail in case they are granted liberty of bail. The hearing and disposal of the present appeal is not likely 4 CRLA No. 2173 of 2024 to take place in the near future due to heavy docket.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai and others versus State of Gujarat, (1999) 4 SCC 421, wherein it was held that when a convicted person is sentenced to fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence should be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances.

12. However, subsequently, in Kishori Lal versus Rupa, (2004) 7 SCC 638, detailed guidelines were issued regarding grant or refusal of bail in a criminal appeal filed against conviction and sentence on which reliance was placed in Om Prakash Sahni versus Jai Shankar Chaudhary and another, (2023) 6 SCC 123 and Asif @ Pasha versus State of U.P. and another, Criminal Appeal No.3409 of 2025 vide judgment dated

06.08.2025.

13. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the offence is of a serious nature and the appellants/applicants were having common intention with the main accused to attempt to kill the injured persons. However, they did not dispute the fact that co-accused Manish Pathak, who has been assigned the major role in the offence, has already been enlarged on bail.

14. Considering rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature and seriousness of the offence, nature of evidence, complicity of the appellants, quantum of sentence awarded to the appellants, totality of facts and circumstances of the case and period of incarceration of the appellants, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and also in view of the fact that these are the new appeals and its hearing and disposal is not likely to take place in near future, I find it a fit case for grant of bail.

15. Let the appellants/ applicants, Ghanshyam Pathak, Arvind Pathak and Maen Bahadur Pathak, convicted and sentenced in the aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the 5 CRLA No. 2173 of 2024 condition that the appellants shall cooperate in early disposal of present appeal and no unduly adjournment will be sought on their behalf.

16. As regards fine, it is directed that half of the amount shall be deposited by the appellants before their release from jail pursuant to present bail order and remaining half shall be remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. December 17, 2025 Raj (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)