High Court

Sessions Trial No.1150 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No.317 of 2010, under Sections 302 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station Talkatora, District Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant has submitted that the applicant/ appellant is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in this case and he has been convicted in this case against the weight of evidence.

4. His next submission is that initially the first information report came to be lodged by none other than wife of the deceased against some unknown persons. His next submission is that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence as there is no eye witness of the alleged incident. The chain of events is not so complete indicating the guilt of the present accused-appellant/ applicant. Despite this fact, the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has wrongly convicted the appellant/ applicant.

7. His further submission is that the only evidence available against the appellant/applicant is the alleged recovery of a knife and his confessional statement given to the police personnel at the time of his arrest, which is per se inadmissible. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the fact that though, on the basis of the confessional statement of the appellant/applicant, the co- accused, Rajesh Lodh, has also been tried, however, he has been acquitted by the learned trial Court. His further submission is that except the alleged motive of having affair with the wife of the deceased, there is no other admissible evidence against the appellant/applicant. Therefore, he submits that the learned trial Court has proceeded to convict the appellant/applicant on the basis of surmises and conjectures, having regard to the alleged recovery of the knife. However, there was no independent witness of the said recovery.

10. His next submission is that the present appellant/applicant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to him. His further submission applicant/appellant is languishing in jail since

19.07.2024. The accused-appellant/ applicant has no previous criminal history.

11. 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.

12. Learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the accused-appellant/ applicant by submitting that the learned trial court has given a categorical finding of guilt against the present accused- appellant/ applicant vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.07.2024, which is well discussed and reasoned. Therefore, the accused-appellant/ applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant/ applicant.

13. 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 the first information report came to be lodged by none other than wife of the deceased against some unknown persons. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence as there is no eye witness of the alleged incident. The chain of events, prima facie, is not complete. The only evidence available against the appellant/applicant is the alleged recovery of a knife and his confessional statement given to the police personnel at the time of his arrest. Though, on the basis of the confessional statement of the appellant/applicant, the co-accused, Rajesh Lodh, has also been tried, however, he has been acquitted by the learned trial Court. The present appellant/applicant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to him. The applicant/appellant is languishing in jail since

19.07.2024. The accused-appellant/ applicant has no previous criminal history.

14. 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 application for suspension of sentence is, thus, allowed.

15. Let the applicant/appellant- Ram Gopal be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

16. 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.

17. It is made clear that during bail, the accused- appellant/applicant shall not indulge himself in any criminal activity. If he is found to be indulged in any criminal activity, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

18. Entire amount of fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall be deposited by the appellant/ applicant within a period of six weeks from the date of his release from jail concerned, 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. (Order on appeal)

19. Office is directed to prepare the paper book.

20. List in the month of March, 2025. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 A.Dewal

Sessions Trial No.1150 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No.317 of 2010, under Sections 302 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station Talkatora, District Lucknow.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant/ appellant has submitted that the applicant/ appellant is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in this case and he has been convicted in this case against the weight of evidence.

4. His next submission is that initially the first information report came to be lodged by none other than wife of the deceased against some unknown persons. His next submission is that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence as there is no eye witness of the alleged incident. The chain of events is not so complete indicating the guilt of the present accused-appellant/ applicant. Despite this fact, the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has wrongly convicted the appellant/ applicant.

7. His further submission is that the only evidence available against the appellant/applicant is the alleged recovery of a knife and his confessional statement given to the police personnel at the time of his arrest, which is per se inadmissible. He has also drawn attention of this Court to the fact that though, on the basis of the confessional statement of the appellant/applicant, the co- accused, Rajesh Lodh, has also been tried, however, he has been acquitted by the learned trial Court. His further submission is that except the alleged motive of having affair with the wife of the deceased, there is no other admissible evidence against the appellant/applicant. Therefore, he submits that the learned trial Court has proceeded to convict the appellant/applicant on the basis of surmises and conjectures, having regard to the alleged recovery of the knife. However, there was no independent witness of the said recovery.

10. His next submission is that the present appellant/applicant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to him. His further submission applicant/appellant is languishing in jail since

19.07.2024. The accused-appellant/ applicant has no previous criminal history.

11. 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.

12. Learned A.G.A. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the accused-appellant/ applicant by submitting that the learned trial court has given a categorical finding of guilt against the present accused- appellant/ applicant vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.07.2024, which is well discussed and reasoned. Therefore, the accused-appellant/ applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant/ applicant.

13. 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 the first information report came to be lodged by none other than wife of the deceased against some unknown persons. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence as there is no eye witness of the alleged incident. The chain of events, prima facie, is not complete. The only evidence available against the appellant/applicant is the alleged recovery of a knife and his confessional statement given to the police personnel at the time of his arrest. Though, on the basis of the confessional statement of the appellant/applicant, the co-accused, Rajesh Lodh, has also been tried, however, he has been acquitted by the learned trial Court. The present appellant/applicant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to him. The applicant/appellant is languishing in jail since

19.07.2024. The accused-appellant/ applicant has no previous criminal history.

14. 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 application for suspension of sentence is, thus, allowed.

15. Let the applicant/appellant- Ram Gopal be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

16. 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.

17. It is made clear that during bail, the accused- appellant/applicant shall not indulge himself in any criminal activity. If he is found to be indulged in any criminal activity, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

18. Entire amount of fine imposed by the learned Trial Court shall be deposited by the appellant/ applicant within a period of six weeks from the date of his release from jail concerned, 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. (Order on appeal)

19. Office is directed to prepare the paper book.

20. List in the month of March, 2025. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 A.Dewal