Ram Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And

Learned counsel submits that the applicant was prosecuted for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. in S.T.No.284 of 1993, through Case Crime No.280 of 1992, under Section 307 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Purakalandar, district Ayodhya, wherein his trial ended in conviction vide impugned judgment dated 23.01.2004. He submits that the applicant-convict was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, the applicant-convict was directed to further undergo additional imprisonment for a period of one year. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.01.2004, Criminal Appeal No.876 of 2004 was filed before this Court and the same was decided vide judgement dated 25.08.2023. Learned counsel while referring to the decision dated 25.08.2023 argued that this Court while maintaining the conviction of the applicant under Section 307 I.P.C. modified the sentence part by extending him the concession under Section 4 The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. According to the learned counsel through the impugned order dated 03.11.2025, the applicant has been taken in custody. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has been battling with his different health issues as initially he had some liver problem followed by an eye ailment, who remained admitted in hospital also, therefore, he was unable to claim the benefit of the appellate court judgment dated 25.08.2023, which resulted in his present detention in prison. He submits that while passing the impugned 2 A482 No. 10179 of 2025 order, the trial court has not followed the procedure contained in Section 9 The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, therefore, he prays that the impugned order dated

03.11.2025 be set aside and the applicant be granted opportunity to furnish the bonds as ordered vide judgment dated 25.08.2023. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and considering his submission, this Court finds that the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court against the applicant-convict has been affirmed by this Court, who has been held guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C.. No doubt, the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial court was modified by applying the concession to convict under Section 4 The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, but while extending this relief, a specific condition was imposed upon the applicant that he shall furnish the requisite personal bonds, sureties and undertaking within a period of two months, and failure would revive the sentence. The relevant part of the decision dated 25.08.2023, reads as under : "31. In the light of the above discussion, as far as it relates with the conviction of the appellant Ram Kumar is maintained but the sentence is modified. Instead of sending the appellant Ram Kumar to jail, he is given benefit of Section 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and he is directed to file two sureties each to the tune of Rs 20,000/- along with his personal bond before District Probation Officer concerned and also an undertaking to the effect that he shall maintain peace and good behaviour during the period of two years from today. The said bond is to be filed by the appellant Ram Kumar within a period of two months from the date of this judgment .

32. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the appellant Ram Kumar shall be taken into custody and shall have to undergo sentence awarded to him.

33. With the above modification, the instant criminal appeal is partly allowed.

34. A certified copy of the order be also sent to the court concerned for compliance.

35. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

36. Lower court record, if any, shall also be sent back to the district court concerned." A reading of the above would show that this Court had clearly mentioned that in case the conditions are not fulfilled by the appellant-Ram Kumar, he shall be taken into custody and shall have to undergo sentence awarded to him. The order dated 25.08.2023 was accepted by the applicant with open eyes, therefore, after his arrest, in compliance of the order dated 25.08.2023, the applicant can not claim that he was prevented by sufficient reasons for not complying with the conditions imposed by the appellate court.The alleged ailments/health issues pleaded by the applicant in the application do not indicate that the same was serious enough to prevent the applicant 3 A482 No. 10179 of 2025 from complying with the conditions imposed by this Court in the judgment dated

25.08.2023. The explanation for non compliance of the conditions imposed in the judgment dated 25.08.2023 is not at all convincing, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The other argument by learned counsel that the provisions of Section 9 The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 have not been strictly followed while taking the applicant in custody is without any merit, as concededly, the applicant had never furnished bonds or sureties before District Probation Officer concerned as ordered by this Court. Thus, the relief granted by this Court was not availed by the applicant-convict and it being a clear violation of the conditions imposed by this Court, the trial court is justified in taking the applicant in custody for serving the sentence. In view of the above discussions, no ground is made out for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. December 2, 2025 R./ (Manoj Bajaj,J.) RAJEEV KUMAR SACHDEVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Learned counsel submits that the applicant was prosecuted for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. in S.T.No.284 of 1993, through Case Crime No.280 of 1992, under Section 307 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Purakalandar, district Ayodhya, wherein his trial ended in conviction vide impugned judgment dated 23.01.2004. He submits that the applicant-convict was sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, the applicant-convict was directed to further undergo additional imprisonment for a period of one year. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.01.2004, Criminal Appeal No.876 of 2004 was filed before this Court and the same was decided vide judgement dated 25.08.2023. Learned counsel while referring to the decision dated 25.08.2023 argued that this Court while maintaining the conviction of the applicant under Section 307 I.P.C. modified the sentence part by extending him the concession under Section 4 The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. According to the learned counsel through the impugned order dated 03.11.2025, the applicant has been taken in custody. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has been battling with his different health issues as initially he had some liver problem followed by an eye ailment, who remained admitted in hospital also, therefore, he was unable to claim the benefit of the appellate court judgment dated 25.08.2023, which resulted in his present detention in prison. He submits that while passing the impugned 2 A482 No. 10179 of 2025 order, the trial court has not followed the procedure contained in Section 9 The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, therefore, he prays that the impugned order dated

03.11.2025 be set aside and the applicant be granted opportunity to furnish the bonds as ordered vide judgment dated 25.08.2023. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and considering his submission, this Court finds that the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court against the applicant-convict has been affirmed by this Court, who has been held guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C.. No doubt, the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial court was modified by applying the concession to convict under Section 4 The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, but while extending this relief, a specific condition was imposed upon the applicant that he shall furnish the requisite personal bonds, sureties and undertaking within a period of two months, and failure would revive the sentence. The relevant part of the decision dated 25.08.2023, reads as under : "31. In the light of the above discussion, as far as it relates with the conviction of the appellant Ram Kumar is maintained but the sentence is modified. Instead of sending the appellant Ram Kumar to jail, he is given benefit of Section 4 of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and he is directed to file two sureties each to the tune of Rs 20,000/- along with his personal bond before District Probation Officer concerned and also an undertaking to the effect that he shall maintain peace and good behaviour during the period of two years from today. The said bond is to be filed by the appellant Ram Kumar within a period of two months from the date of this judgment .

32. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the appellant Ram Kumar shall be taken into custody and shall have to undergo sentence awarded to him.

33. With the above modification, the instant criminal appeal is partly allowed.

34. A certified copy of the order be also sent to the court concerned for compliance.

35. Office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned for necessary compliance.

36. Lower court record, if any, shall also be sent back to the district court concerned." A reading of the above would show that this Court had clearly mentioned that in case the conditions are not fulfilled by the appellant-Ram Kumar, he shall be taken into custody and shall have to undergo sentence awarded to him. The order dated 25.08.2023 was accepted by the applicant with open eyes, therefore, after his arrest, in compliance of the order dated 25.08.2023, the applicant can not claim that he was prevented by sufficient reasons for not complying with the conditions imposed by the appellate court.The alleged ailments/health issues pleaded by the applicant in the application do not indicate that the same was serious enough to prevent the applicant 3 A482 No. 10179 of 2025 from complying with the conditions imposed by this Court in the judgment dated

25.08.2023. The explanation for non compliance of the conditions imposed in the judgment dated 25.08.2023 is not at all convincing, therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The other argument by learned counsel that the provisions of Section 9 The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 have not been strictly followed while taking the applicant in custody is without any merit, as concededly, the applicant had never furnished bonds or sureties before District Probation Officer concerned as ordered by this Court. Thus, the relief granted by this Court was not availed by the applicant-convict and it being a clear violation of the conditions imposed by this Court, the trial court is justified in taking the applicant in custody for serving the sentence. In view of the above discussions, no ground is made out for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. December 2, 2025 R./ (Manoj Bajaj,J.) RAJEEV KUMAR SACHDEVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench