Allahabad High Court

: Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Akshat Kumar : G.A. Court No. - 14 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. [Order on C.M. Application No. 1 of 2024]-Bail Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, learned AGA for the State and as well as perused the record. The applicant/appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 14.11.2024 and 15.11.2024 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-II, Ayodhya in Sessions Trial No. 73/17 Computer Registration No. 76 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 555 of 2015 under Sections 308, 325, 323, and 504 of IPC Police Station Inayatnagar District Ayodhya. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted the appellant- applicant is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior reasons. He has also submitted that the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial court is against the weight of evidence, which is based on surmises and conjectures, therefore, the same is perverse. His further submission is that the learned trial court failed to appreciate material contradictions appearing in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which renders the impugned judgement illegal and perverse. Further submission is that the first informant, Ram Awadh is one of the injured, who has not been produced by the prosecution the reasons of which are best known to the prosecution itself. He, thus, submits that prosecution shield the real genesis of the incident in question for which the appellant has wrongly been convicted. He also submits that vague and general allegations of assault have 2 CRLA No. 4100 of 2024 been levelled against all the appellant and no specific role has been assigned to the appellant, therefore, it is difficult to ascertain as to who caused injury which constitutes offence under Section 308, 325 IPC. His further submission is that the appellant was on bail during trial and he has never misused the liberty of bail granted to him during trial and there are three cases criminal history of the appellant-applicant which has been explained. He has also submitted that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is upto five years only. The co-convicts, namely, Asharam, Ram Nihal Yadav and Jaisram Yadav have already been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has concluded his submission by submitting that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall also cooperate with this Court in getting the present criminal appeal decided expeditiously. Therefore, the accused-appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of this appeal. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the appellant has been convicted vide impugned judgement and order dated 14.11.2024, which is based on proper analysis of evidence available on record. Therefore, he prays that the application for bail deserves to be rejected. However, he has been unable to dispute the aforesaid factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant- applicant including the fact that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is upto five years only. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicnat and learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that the first information report came to be lodged by one Ram Awadh in respect of an incident which occurred on 08.12.2015 at about 12.30 p.m. where apart from him some other persons were stated to have been assaulted by the appellant but he has not been produced or examined by the prosecution, only general role has been assigned against the appellant. The appellant-applicant has come to be convicted for the offence under Sections 308, 325 and 323 I.P.C. and maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is upto five years for offence under Section 308 I.P.C. The appellant-applicant has three cases criminal history which has been explained. The appellant was on bail during trial and there is no instance of any misuse of liberty granted to them and as the appeal pertains to the year 2024, there is no likelihood that the appeal being disposed of in near future. 3 CRLA No. 4100 of 2024 Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that there is material contradiction which has been ignored by the learned trial court of mark of injuries of entry and exit wound over the body of the injured. This Court has noticed the fact that the applicant-appellant was on bail during the trial and he never misused the liberty of bail and the applicant-appellant has three cases criminal history which has been explained. The appellant-applicant is in jail since 25.02.2025 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate the hearing of appeal, therefore, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of bail. In result, the bail application of the applicant/appellant is allowed. Let the applicant/appellant- Devendra Kumar Yadav, involved in aforesaid case, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (i) The fine, imposed by the trial court, shall be deposited by the applicant/appellant within a period of one month from his actual release from prison, if the same is not earlier deposited. (ii) The applicant/appellant shall cooperate in early disposal of the appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The applicant/appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bonds, the lower court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record. [Order on Criminal Appeal] List in due course. September 23, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

: Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Akshat Kumar : G.A. Court No. - 14 HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J. [Order on C.M. Application No. 1 of 2024]-Bail Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, learned AGA for the State and as well as perused the record. The applicant/appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 14.11.2024 and 15.11.2024 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court-II, Ayodhya in Sessions Trial No. 73/17 Computer Registration No. 76 of 2017 arising out of Case Crime No. 555 of 2015 under Sections 308, 325, 323, and 504 of IPC Police Station Inayatnagar District Ayodhya. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has submitted the appellant- applicant is innocent, who has been falsely implicated in the present case due to some ulterior reasons. He has also submitted that the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial court is against the weight of evidence, which is based on surmises and conjectures, therefore, the same is perverse. His further submission is that the learned trial court failed to appreciate material contradictions appearing in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which renders the impugned judgement illegal and perverse. Further submission is that the first informant, Ram Awadh is one of the injured, who has not been produced by the prosecution the reasons of which are best known to the prosecution itself. He, thus, submits that prosecution shield the real genesis of the incident in question for which the appellant has wrongly been convicted. He also submits that vague and general allegations of assault have 2 CRLA No. 4100 of 2024 been levelled against all the appellant and no specific role has been assigned to the appellant, therefore, it is difficult to ascertain as to who caused injury which constitutes offence under Section 308, 325 IPC. His further submission is that the appellant was on bail during trial and he has never misused the liberty of bail granted to him during trial and there are three cases criminal history of the appellant-applicant which has been explained. He has also submitted that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is upto five years only. The co-convicts, namely, Asharam, Ram Nihal Yadav and Jaisram Yadav have already been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has concluded his submission by submitting that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall also cooperate with this Court in getting the present criminal appeal decided expeditiously. Therefore, the accused-appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail during pendency of this appeal. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail by submitting that the appellant has been convicted vide impugned judgement and order dated 14.11.2024, which is based on proper analysis of evidence available on record. Therefore, he prays that the application for bail deserves to be rejected. However, he has been unable to dispute the aforesaid factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant- applicant including the fact that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is upto five years only. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant-applicnat and learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, it transpires that the first information report came to be lodged by one Ram Awadh in respect of an incident which occurred on 08.12.2015 at about 12.30 p.m. where apart from him some other persons were stated to have been assaulted by the appellant but he has not been produced or examined by the prosecution, only general role has been assigned against the appellant. The appellant-applicant has come to be convicted for the offence under Sections 308, 325 and 323 I.P.C. and maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is upto five years for offence under Section 308 I.P.C. The appellant-applicant has three cases criminal history which has been explained. The appellant was on bail during trial and there is no instance of any misuse of liberty granted to them and as the appeal pertains to the year 2024, there is no likelihood that the appeal being disposed of in near future. 3 CRLA No. 4100 of 2024 Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that there is material contradiction which has been ignored by the learned trial court of mark of injuries of entry and exit wound over the body of the injured. This Court has noticed the fact that the applicant-appellant was on bail during the trial and he never misused the liberty of bail and the applicant-appellant has three cases criminal history which has been explained. The appellant-applicant is in jail since 25.02.2025 and he undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail, if granted and would cooperate the hearing of appeal, therefore, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of bail. In result, the bail application of the applicant/appellant is allowed. Let the applicant/appellant- Devendra Kumar Yadav, involved in aforesaid case, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (i) The fine, imposed by the trial court, shall be deposited by the applicant/appellant within a period of one month from his actual release from prison, if the same is not earlier deposited. (ii) The applicant/appellant shall cooperate in early disposal of the appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment. (iii) The applicant/appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bonds, the lower court concerned shall transmit the photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record. [Order on Criminal Appeal] List in due course. September 23, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.)