Criminal Appeal No. 4014 of 2024 · High Court

1. Heard Sri Akshay Kumar Singh, Advocate assisted by Ms. Palak Jama, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.117 of 2025 and Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2025, Sri Jitendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.3969 of 2024, Sri Gyanoday Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.4014 of 2024 as well as learned learned A.G.A for the State.

2. These are the first bail applications moved by the appellants, namely, Ramesh @ Ramesh Kumar Verma, Shiv Kumar, Anil Kumar, Shiv Pal @ Shiv Lal and Manish in these criminal appeals, which have been filed against the judgement and order dated 19/20.11.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No.9665 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No.203A of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 323/149, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 4/25, 30 of Arms Act, Police Station Jaidpur, District Barabanki.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants were falsely implicated in the present case. They further submit that there was a cross case and there is a finding of the learned trial court that it was a free fight between the parties for realizing money from the shop keepers in Durga Mata Temple, in which, both the sides had suffered injuries. They further submit that in view of the finding of learned trial court of free fight between the parities, the case would fall in exception to Section 300(4) I.P.C. and in such a case the conviction and the punishment could have been made under Section 308 I.P.C. in place of Section 307 I.P.C. and under Section 308 I.P.C., the maximum punishment provided is seven years. They further submit that in the cross case, all the accused persons have been bailed out by this Court. They further submit that from the appellants' side, one person, namely, Shiv Bahadur had also died, but without considering it, the learned trial court has convicted the appellants and awarded maximum sentence under Section 307/149 I.P.C.

4. Thus, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that without properly evaluating the evidence on record, conviction has been made and the appellants have been sentenced. They further submit that the appellants do not have any criminal history. They were on bail during trial, which was never misused by them and in case the liberty of bail is granted by this Court, the appellants will not misuse the liberty and will ensure the proper assistance to the Court in expeditious disposal of the appeal. Hence, the appellants are entitled to be released on bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. for the State while opposing the prayer of learned counsel for the appellants submits that the conviction has been made in accordance with law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned trial court, however, he could not contradict the aforesaid submissions as argued by learned counsel for the appellants.

6. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the legal argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, which could not be contradicted by the other side, there is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants as well as liberty of bail granted during trial and there is no other criminal history, this Court is of the view that the case for bail is made out.

7. Accordingly, the applications for bail are allowed.

8. Let the appellants, namely, Ramesh @ Ramesh Kumar Verma, Shiv Kumar, Anil Kumar, Shiv Pal @ Shiv Lal and Manish be enlarged on bail in Sessions Trial No.9665 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No.203A of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 323/149, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 4/25, 30 of Arms Act, Police Station Jaidpur, District Barabanki on their furnishing of personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) The appellants shall cooperate in the disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (ii) The appellants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

9. As soon as personal bonds 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.

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

11. It is further directed that the appellants shall deposit the 50% of fine as awarded by the learned trial court within two months from the date of release and the remaining 50% shall remain stayed during pendency of this appeal. (Order on Memo of Appeals) List in due course for hearing. (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 8.8.2025/Saurabh

1. Heard Sri Akshay Kumar Singh, Advocate assisted by Ms. Palak Jama, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.117 of 2025 and Criminal Appeal No.128 of 2025, Sri Jitendra Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.3969 of 2024, Sri Gyanoday Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.4014 of 2024 as well as learned learned A.G.A for the State.

2. These are the first bail applications moved by the appellants, namely, Ramesh @ Ramesh Kumar Verma, Shiv Kumar, Anil Kumar, Shiv Pal @ Shiv Lal and Manish in these criminal appeals, which have been filed against the judgement and order dated 19/20.11.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, E.C. Act, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No.9665 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No.203A of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 323/149, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 4/25, 30 of Arms Act, Police Station Jaidpur, District Barabanki.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants were falsely implicated in the present case. They further submit that there was a cross case and there is a finding of the learned trial court that it was a free fight between the parties for realizing money from the shop keepers in Durga Mata Temple, in which, both the sides had suffered injuries. They further submit that in view of the finding of learned trial court of free fight between the parities, the case would fall in exception to Section 300(4) I.P.C. and in such a case the conviction and the punishment could have been made under Section 308 I.P.C. in place of Section 307 I.P.C. and under Section 308 I.P.C., the maximum punishment provided is seven years. They further submit that in the cross case, all the accused persons have been bailed out by this Court. They further submit that from the appellants' side, one person, namely, Shiv Bahadur had also died, but without considering it, the learned trial court has convicted the appellants and awarded maximum sentence under Section 307/149 I.P.C.

4. Thus, the submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that without properly evaluating the evidence on record, conviction has been made and the appellants have been sentenced. They further submit that the appellants do not have any criminal history. They were on bail during trial, which was never misused by them and in case the liberty of bail is granted by this Court, the appellants will not misuse the liberty and will ensure the proper assistance to the Court in expeditious disposal of the appeal. Hence, the appellants are entitled to be released on bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. for the State while opposing the prayer of learned counsel for the appellants submits that the conviction has been made in accordance with law and there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned trial court, however, he could not contradict the aforesaid submissions as argued by learned counsel for the appellants.

6. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the legal argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, which could not be contradicted by the other side, there is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the appellants as well as liberty of bail granted during trial and there is no other criminal history, this Court is of the view that the case for bail is made out.

7. Accordingly, the applications for bail are allowed.

8. Let the appellants, namely, Ramesh @ Ramesh Kumar Verma, Shiv Kumar, Anil Kumar, Shiv Pal @ Shiv Lal and Manish be enlarged on bail in Sessions Trial No.9665 of 2014, arising out of Case Crime No.203A of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 323/149, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 4/25, 30 of Arms Act, Police Station Jaidpur, District Barabanki on their furnishing of personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned, subject to following conditions:- (i) The appellants shall cooperate in the disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (ii) The appellants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

9. As soon as personal bonds 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.

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

11. It is further directed that the appellants shall deposit the 50% of fine as awarded by the learned trial court within two months from the date of release and the remaining 50% shall remain stayed during pendency of this appeal. (Order on Memo of Appeals) List in due course for hearing. (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 8.8.2025/Saurabh