High Court

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. (C.M. Application No.1 of 2024 : First Bail Application)

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This is an application seeking suspension of sentence preferred by the applicant/ appellant, Munne alias Janardan Singh, who has been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 552 of 2010 titled as State of U.P. vs. Ramprakash Singh and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 439 of 2009, under Sections 302/34, 504, 506(2) I.P.C., Police Station Pachdevra, District Hardoi, whereby the appellant/ applicant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.40,000/- for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo six months additional imprisonment. The appellant/ applicant has further been convicted and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo three months' additional imprisonment. The appellant/ applicant has further been directed to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 506 (2) I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo three months additional imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant that initially the First Information Report came to be lodged against three named accused persons including the present appellant. The other two co-accused were none other than brother and father of the accused.

4. His further submission is that the only role assigned to the appellant/ applicant was of exhortation. The only fatal shot is stated to have been fired by the co-accused Ram Prakash Singh, who has already died during pendency of the trial itself.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant has also drawn attention of this Court to the fact that the allegedly recovered firearm was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for its examination, however, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory does not support the prosecution case.

6. His further submission is that the appellant/ applicant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to him. He has further submitted that the appellant/ applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 18.09.2024.

7. He has also submitted that the appellant/ applicant has been convicted with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. without there being any evidence to suggest that the appellant/ applicant was sharing common intention to kill the deceased with the other co-accused persons.

8. 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.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the present appellant/ applicant is also named in the First Information Report, who came to be convicted vide impugned judgement and order dated 19.09.2024, which is based on proper analysis of evidence available on record. He further submits that the appellant/applicant has been assigned the role of exhortation. Therefore, he prays that the application for bail deserves to be rejected. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant/ applicant. Learned A.G.A. has also not been able to dispute the fact that the ballistic report does not support the prosecution case.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that the F.I.R. came to be lodged against the three named persons including the present appellant/ applicant. The only role assigned to the present appellant/ applicant is of exhortation. The alleged fire is stated to have been made by co-accused Ram Prakash Singh, who died during pendency of trial. The appellant/ applicant has been convicted with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. because of his role of exhortation. The appellant was on bail during trial and there is no instance of any misuse of liberty granted to him. The appellant is in jail since 18.09.2024 and he has no criminal history.

11. 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 instant application seeking suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant/ applicant is, thus, allowed.

12. Let the applicant/ appellant, Munne @ Janardan Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of 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.

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

14. The appellant/ applicant shall deposit the entire amount of fine imposed against him by the learned trial court vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2024 within a period of six weeks from the date he is released on bail under this order.

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

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. (order on appeal)

17. Office is directed to prepare the typed paper book in this case and provide a copy of the same to learned counsel for the parties as per rules of the Court.

18. List this appeal in the month of April, 2025. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Shubhankar

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J. (C.M. Application No.1 of 2024 : First Bail Application)

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This is an application seeking suspension of sentence preferred by the applicant/ appellant, Munne alias Janardan Singh, who has been convicted in Sessions Trial No. 552 of 2010 titled as State of U.P. vs. Ramprakash Singh and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 439 of 2009, under Sections 302/34, 504, 506(2) I.P.C., Police Station Pachdevra, District Hardoi, whereby the appellant/ applicant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.40,000/- for the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo six months additional imprisonment. The appellant/ applicant has further been convicted and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo three months' additional imprisonment. The appellant/ applicant has further been directed to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 506 (2) I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he has further been directed to undergo three months additional imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant that initially the First Information Report came to be lodged against three named accused persons including the present appellant. The other two co-accused were none other than brother and father of the accused.

4. His further submission is that the only role assigned to the appellant/ applicant was of exhortation. The only fatal shot is stated to have been fired by the co-accused Ram Prakash Singh, who has already died during pendency of the trial itself.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant has also drawn attention of this Court to the fact that the allegedly recovered firearm was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for its examination, however, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory does not support the prosecution case.

6. His further submission is that the appellant/ applicant was on bail during trial and did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to him. He has further submitted that the appellant/ applicant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 18.09.2024.

7. He has also submitted that the appellant/ applicant has been convicted with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. without there being any evidence to suggest that the appellant/ applicant was sharing common intention to kill the deceased with the other co-accused persons.

8. 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.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the present appellant/ applicant is also named in the First Information Report, who came to be convicted vide impugned judgement and order dated 19.09.2024, which is based on proper analysis of evidence available on record. He further submits that the appellant/applicant has been assigned the role of exhortation. Therefore, he prays that the application for bail deserves to be rejected. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant/ applicant. Learned A.G.A. has also not been able to dispute the fact that the ballistic report does not support the prosecution case.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant/ applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that the F.I.R. came to be lodged against the three named persons including the present appellant/ applicant. The only role assigned to the present appellant/ applicant is of exhortation. The alleged fire is stated to have been made by co-accused Ram Prakash Singh, who died during pendency of trial. The appellant/ applicant has been convicted with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. because of his role of exhortation. The appellant was on bail during trial and there is no instance of any misuse of liberty granted to him. The appellant is in jail since 18.09.2024 and he has no criminal history.

11. 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 instant application seeking suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant/ applicant is, thus, allowed.

12. Let the applicant/ appellant, Munne @ Janardan Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of 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.

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

14. The appellant/ applicant shall deposit the entire amount of fine imposed against him by the learned trial court vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2024 within a period of six weeks from the date he is released on bail under this order.

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

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. (order on appeal)

17. Office is directed to prepare the typed paper book in this case and provide a copy of the same to learned counsel for the parties as per rules of the Court.

18. List this appeal in the month of April, 2025. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Shubhankar