Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Shri Arun Sinha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddhartha Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Brij Mohan Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

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 stated 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. 2 CRLA No. 2438 of 2024

5. Admit.

6. Summon the lower court record.

7. List the appeal for hearing in due course. (Order on Bail Application/ Suspension of Sentence)

8. Learned counsel for the appellant 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 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 appellant, came in front of them suddenly. The vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the appellant, inside the vehicle, co-accused Arvind Pathak, Maen Pathak and Ghanshyam Pathak were sitting and were armed with weapons. The appellant 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 appellant 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. He next submitted that, in fact, this is a case of road accident and false allegation has been made against the appellant that he hit the injured persons with intention to kill them by his vehicle. The 3 co-accused persons are said to have been armed with weapons and sitting in the vehicle but there is no allegation that they tried to assault the injured persons. If the intention of the appellant and the co-accused persons would have been to kill the injured persons, the persons sitting in the vehicle would also have assaulted them by their respective weapons. In fact, the vehicle of the appellant arrived at the place of incident and was damaged by the family members of the injured and this fact has been 3 CRLA No. 2438 of 2024 supported by DW1 to DW4 and during trial, but learned trial court ignored their evidence.

10. He further submitted that the appellant has been held in jail since

28.06.2024 after conviction and that he had been held in custody for 3-4 months during the investigation of the case before his release on bail during trial. Thus, he has undergone around 2 years of imprisonment in the present case. The appellant has explained his criminal history of six cases in para 34 of the affidavit filed with the present bail application under Section 430 BNSS and the bail orders have been enclosed as Annexure Nos.1, 2 and 3 to the bail application. The remaining three cases relate to Section 110G Cr.P.C. which is preventive in nature and not penal. In one case under Section 307/308 IPC he has been acquitted by trial court vide order dated 21.08.2023. The appellant is not a previous convict. He undertakes to abide by the conditions of bail, in case he is granted bail. The hearing and disposal of the present criminal appeal is not likely to take place in near future due to heavy docket.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant 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. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant as well as the learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the appellant is the main accused in the case. He had a 4 CRLA No. 2438 of 2024 motive to commit this offence due to previous enmity with the complainant side. Complainant side in present case was accused in murder of the father of the appellant as per version of the appellant in his material under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has also filed a criminal revision for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellant, which is pending before this Court. The injured, Shubham, suffered serious injuries in the accident, which could have been fatal to him, if he had not been provided quality medical attention just after the accident. He referred to the statement of PW-11, Dr. D.K. Vatsal, who appeared before the court during the trial and proved medical papers and bed head tickets of the injured, Shubham Singh. He stated that the injured had suffered serious injuries in his brain due to head injury. He was in a state of coma and was put on a ventilator on 19.10.2016. There were some small injuries and swelling in the brain of the injured when he was sent for MRI of his head, as this was a case of neurological branch. He gained consciousness on

25.10.2016 and became oriented in course of time. His thigh bone was also fractured in his right leg, for which he was referred to the orthopedician on 27.10.2016. PW11 had stated that due to the condition observed about the injured, the chances of death existed. However, they have not disputed the period of incarceration of the appellant as set up by the counsel for the appellant.

14. Considering rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature and seriousness of the offence, nature of evidence, complicity of the appellant, quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant, totality of facts and circumstances of the case and period of incarceration of the appellant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and also in view of the fact that this is a new appeal 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 appellant/ applicant, Manish 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 condition that the appellant shall cooperate in early disposal of present appeal and no unduly adjournment will be sought on his behalf. 5 CRLA No. 2438 of 2024

16. As regards fine, it is directed that half of the amount shall be deposited by the appellant before his release from jail pursuant to present bail order and remaining half shall be remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. November 28, 2025 Mohd. Sharif (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

1. Heard Shri Arun Sinha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Siddhartha Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Brij Mohan Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

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 stated 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. 2 CRLA No. 2438 of 2024

5. Admit.

6. Summon the lower court record.

7. List the appeal for hearing in due course. (Order on Bail Application/ Suspension of Sentence)

8. Learned counsel for the appellant 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 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 appellant, came in front of them suddenly. The vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the appellant, inside the vehicle, co-accused Arvind Pathak, Maen Pathak and Ghanshyam Pathak were sitting and were armed with weapons. The appellant 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 appellant 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. He next submitted that, in fact, this is a case of road accident and false allegation has been made against the appellant that he hit the injured persons with intention to kill them by his vehicle. The 3 co-accused persons are said to have been armed with weapons and sitting in the vehicle but there is no allegation that they tried to assault the injured persons. If the intention of the appellant and the co-accused persons would have been to kill the injured persons, the persons sitting in the vehicle would also have assaulted them by their respective weapons. In fact, the vehicle of the appellant arrived at the place of incident and was damaged by the family members of the injured and this fact has been 3 CRLA No. 2438 of 2024 supported by DW1 to DW4 and during trial, but learned trial court ignored their evidence.

10. He further submitted that the appellant has been held in jail since

28.06.2024 after conviction and that he had been held in custody for 3-4 months during the investigation of the case before his release on bail during trial. Thus, he has undergone around 2 years of imprisonment in the present case. The appellant has explained his criminal history of six cases in para 34 of the affidavit filed with the present bail application under Section 430 BNSS and the bail orders have been enclosed as Annexure Nos.1, 2 and 3 to the bail application. The remaining three cases relate to Section 110G Cr.P.C. which is preventive in nature and not penal. In one case under Section 307/308 IPC he has been acquitted by trial court vide order dated 21.08.2023. The appellant is not a previous convict. He undertakes to abide by the conditions of bail, in case he is granted bail. The hearing and disposal of the present criminal appeal is not likely to take place in near future due to heavy docket.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant 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. Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant as well as the learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the appellant is the main accused in the case. He had a 4 CRLA No. 2438 of 2024 motive to commit this offence due to previous enmity with the complainant side. Complainant side in present case was accused in murder of the father of the appellant as per version of the appellant in his material under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He has also filed a criminal revision for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellant, which is pending before this Court. The injured, Shubham, suffered serious injuries in the accident, which could have been fatal to him, if he had not been provided quality medical attention just after the accident. He referred to the statement of PW-11, Dr. D.K. Vatsal, who appeared before the court during the trial and proved medical papers and bed head tickets of the injured, Shubham Singh. He stated that the injured had suffered serious injuries in his brain due to head injury. He was in a state of coma and was put on a ventilator on 19.10.2016. There were some small injuries and swelling in the brain of the injured when he was sent for MRI of his head, as this was a case of neurological branch. He gained consciousness on

25.10.2016 and became oriented in course of time. His thigh bone was also fractured in his right leg, for which he was referred to the orthopedician on 27.10.2016. PW11 had stated that due to the condition observed about the injured, the chances of death existed. However, they have not disputed the period of incarceration of the appellant as set up by the counsel for the appellant.

14. Considering rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature and seriousness of the offence, nature of evidence, complicity of the appellant, quantum of sentence awarded to the appellant, totality of facts and circumstances of the case and period of incarceration of the appellant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and also in view of the fact that this is a new appeal 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 appellant/ applicant, Manish 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 condition that the appellant shall cooperate in early disposal of present appeal and no unduly adjournment will be sought on his behalf. 5 CRLA No. 2438 of 2024

16. As regards fine, it is directed that half of the amount shall be deposited by the appellant before his release from jail pursuant to present bail order and remaining half shall be remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal. November 28, 2025 Mohd. Sharif (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)