Misc. Application No. 1 of 2024 · High Court

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant- appellant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P.

2. The applicant-appellant has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 09.12.2024, passed by Additional Judge, Court No. 1, Unnao in Sessions Trial No. 320 of 2015 - State Vs. Om Prakash and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 1553 of 2014, under Sections 395 R/w Section 120- B, 397, 328, 412, 436 I.P.C., Police Station - Bangarmau, District - Unnao. Under Section 120-B read with Section 395 IPC, the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to ten years imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-, under Section 397 IPC for seven years rigorous imprisonment, under Section 328 I.P.C. for ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/- and under Section 412 IPC for ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-, under Section 436 IPC for ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-, alongwith default stipulations.

3. As per prosecution case, the complainants are working as Munshi with Ramji Jwellers, Holi Gate, Mathura which shop is owned by one Mohit Agarwal. On 18.10.2014 at about 6.00 AM the complainant alongwith with Pankaj Agarwal while traveling in Innova Car No. UP 32 ER 2177 and going to Mathura and were carrying 6Kg 408gm gold and Rs.51,00,000/- cash. The said car was being driven by Banwari Lal. When the complainant alongwith his companion crossed Nawabganj Toll Plaza, they were stopped by the accused persons who were ten in number travelling in Borelo Cars and were wearing Police uniform, abducted them and get them unconcious by forcibly administering some intoxicating pills. The accused persons took the gold and cash, misbehaved with the complainants by sticking duct tape on their mouth and tied their hands as feet, but left the driver unharmed. The accused persons fled away in Bolero cars. After some time Police arrived and the present FIR was lodged.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has nothing to do with the said incident and has been falsely implicated in the present case crime. It is submitted that there is no independent witness of the recovery in fact nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant-appellant. There is no credible evidence against the applicant. The applicant is not named in the FIR and he has been incarcerated for more than seven years in jail against the maximum sentence of ten years.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has next submitted that appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to him. It is next submitted that the statements of the prosecution witnesses is contradictory. It is lastly submitted that the appellant has spent eight years, two months and nine days in jail during the trial and two months and five days after conviction, hence he has spent eight years four months and fourteen days in custody. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-applicant that co-accused of the case namely Montu @ Tarun Bangali has already been enlarged on bail by this Court by means of order dated 05.03.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2025. It is submitted that since applicant's case is similar to the that of the co-accused, he may also be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity, during the pendency of present appeal. It is also submitted that there is no likelihood of present appeal being heard and decided in near future.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand has opposed the application for bail but does not dispute the above facts as narrated by the counsel for the applicant- appellant.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. On considering the entire aspects of the matter, specially the fact that appellant was on bail during trial and no incident has been reported that he has ever misused the liberty of bail, coupled with the fact that co-accused of this case namely Montu @ Tarun Bangali has already been enlarged on bail and that applicant has spent eight years four months and fourteen days in custody, hence the appellant-applicant has made out a case for bail.

9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant-applicant.

10. Let, the applicant-appellant Saurab Yadav, convicted in Sessions Trial No. 320 of 2015 - State Vs. Om Prakash and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 1553 of 2014, under Sections 395 R/w Section 120-B, 397, 328, 412, 436 I.P.C., Police Station - Bangarmau, District - Unnao, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned.

11. In case, the fine imposed by the Trial Court has not been deposited by the applicant-appellant, half of the fine shall remain stayed and rest half of the fine shall be deposited by him within one month from the date of his release.

12. It is made clear that the bail is being granted to the applicant on the condition that the counsel for the appellant shall appear to argue the appeal as and when the appeal is listed. In case of default of the counsel and non-payment of fine as directed above, the bail is likely to be cancelled.

13. It is further made clear that in case the applicant/appellant commits any offence while on bail, the prosecution would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

14. The Magistrate/Court concerned shall forward copy of the bail bonds as well as list of sureties, to this Court for keeping the same on record.

15. The bail application stands disposed of. Order on Criminal Appeal Let the appeal be listed in due course. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 A. Verma

1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant- appellant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P.

2. The applicant-appellant has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 09.12.2024, passed by Additional Judge, Court No. 1, Unnao in Sessions Trial No. 320 of 2015 - State Vs. Om Prakash and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 1553 of 2014, under Sections 395 R/w Section 120- B, 397, 328, 412, 436 I.P.C., Police Station - Bangarmau, District - Unnao. Under Section 120-B read with Section 395 IPC, the applicant-appellant has been sentenced to ten years imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-, under Section 397 IPC for seven years rigorous imprisonment, under Section 328 I.P.C. for ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/- and under Section 412 IPC for ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-, under Section 436 IPC for ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.20,000/-, alongwith default stipulations.

3. As per prosecution case, the complainants are working as Munshi with Ramji Jwellers, Holi Gate, Mathura which shop is owned by one Mohit Agarwal. On 18.10.2014 at about 6.00 AM the complainant alongwith with Pankaj Agarwal while traveling in Innova Car No. UP 32 ER 2177 and going to Mathura and were carrying 6Kg 408gm gold and Rs.51,00,000/- cash. The said car was being driven by Banwari Lal. When the complainant alongwith his companion crossed Nawabganj Toll Plaza, they were stopped by the accused persons who were ten in number travelling in Borelo Cars and were wearing Police uniform, abducted them and get them unconcious by forcibly administering some intoxicating pills. The accused persons took the gold and cash, misbehaved with the complainants by sticking duct tape on their mouth and tied their hands as feet, but left the driver unharmed. The accused persons fled away in Bolero cars. After some time Police arrived and the present FIR was lodged.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has nothing to do with the said incident and has been falsely implicated in the present case crime. It is submitted that there is no independent witness of the recovery in fact nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant-appellant. There is no credible evidence against the applicant. The applicant is not named in the FIR and he has been incarcerated for more than seven years in jail against the maximum sentence of ten years.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant has next submitted that appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to him. It is next submitted that the statements of the prosecution witnesses is contradictory. It is lastly submitted that the appellant has spent eight years, two months and nine days in jail during the trial and two months and five days after conviction, hence he has spent eight years four months and fourteen days in custody. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-applicant that co-accused of the case namely Montu @ Tarun Bangali has already been enlarged on bail by this Court by means of order dated 05.03.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2025. It is submitted that since applicant's case is similar to the that of the co-accused, he may also be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity, during the pendency of present appeal. It is also submitted that there is no likelihood of present appeal being heard and decided in near future.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand has opposed the application for bail but does not dispute the above facts as narrated by the counsel for the applicant- appellant.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. On considering the entire aspects of the matter, specially the fact that appellant was on bail during trial and no incident has been reported that he has ever misused the liberty of bail, coupled with the fact that co-accused of this case namely Montu @ Tarun Bangali has already been enlarged on bail and that applicant has spent eight years four months and fourteen days in custody, hence the appellant-applicant has made out a case for bail.

9. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant-applicant.

10. Let, the applicant-appellant Saurab Yadav, convicted in Sessions Trial No. 320 of 2015 - State Vs. Om Prakash and Others, arising out of Case Crime No. 1553 of 2014, under Sections 395 R/w Section 120-B, 397, 328, 412, 436 I.P.C., Police Station - Bangarmau, District - Unnao, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned.

11. In case, the fine imposed by the Trial Court has not been deposited by the applicant-appellant, half of the fine shall remain stayed and rest half of the fine shall be deposited by him within one month from the date of his release.

12. It is made clear that the bail is being granted to the applicant on the condition that the counsel for the appellant shall appear to argue the appeal as and when the appeal is listed. In case of default of the counsel and non-payment of fine as directed above, the bail is likely to be cancelled.

13. It is further made clear that in case the applicant/appellant commits any offence while on bail, the prosecution would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

14. The Magistrate/Court concerned shall forward copy of the bail bonds as well as list of sureties, to this Court for keeping the same on record.

15. The bail application stands disposed of. Order on Criminal Appeal Let the appeal be listed in due course. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 A. Verma