Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Allahabad High Court
Laxmi Kant Shukla vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 April, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:57343
Court No. – 77
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 3610 of 2021
Revisionist :- Laxmi Kant Shukla
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh,Santosh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon’ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for revisionist and the counter affidavit filed by the learned A.G.A. in court today are taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. representing opposite party-1.
3. Perused the record.
4. This criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.01.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, in Criminal Case No. 408 of 2010 (State Vs. Laxmi Kant Shukla others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1171 of 2009 under Section 377 I.P.C. Police Station Chopan District Sonbhadra, whereby the revisionist has been convicted under Section 377 I.P.C. and consequently sentenced to 5 years imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5000/- as well as judgment and order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court (CAW) Sonbhadra in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2015 (Laxmikant Shukla Vs. State of U.P.), whereby aforementioned appeal filed by the revisionist against judgment and order dated 19.01.2015 has been dismissed.
5. Present criminal revision came up for admission on 03.03.2022 and this Court passed the following order:-
“This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge / FTC, Sonbhadra.
The same is admitted.
As the conviction is under Section 377 I.P.C., so the notice be served to the opp. party no. 2.
Counter affidavit be filed within three weeks.
Rejoinder may be filed within one week thereafter.
List on 4.4.2022 as fresh”
6. Office has submitted a report dated 21.05.2022 that notice has been served upon opposite party 2 and the Lower Court record has also been received. However, in spite of service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party 2 to oppose this criminal revision.
7. Learned counsel for revisionist submits that revisionist is an old man aged about 63 years as is evident from the custody certificate issued by the concerned Superintendent of Jail, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.S.A-2 to the supplementary affidavit dated 04.03.2024. As per the said custody certificate, revisionist has been under incarceration from 19.12.2009 to 14.10.2010 i.e. 9 months and 26 days, 19.01.2015 to 07.02.2015 i.e. 19 days, and 29.11.2021 to 04.10.2023 i.e. 1 year, 10 months and 6 days. As per the aforesaid certificate, revisionist has undergone 02 years, 8 months and 21 days of incarceration.
8. It is then submitted that subsequent to the aforementioned certificate, revisionist has further undergone 5 months of incarceration. As such, on date the revisionist has undergone 3 years and 1 month and 21 days of incarceration. Since, the maximum sentence awarded to the revisionist is 5 years and revisionist has already completed more than half of the sentence, as such, revisionist is liable to be enlarged on bail.
9. According to the learned counsel for revisionist, offence complained of is the first offence committed by the revisionist and considering the age of the revisionist which is now said to be 63 years, therefore, the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is also liable to be extended in favour of the revisionist.
10. It is lastly submitted that as per the deposition of PW-4 i.e. the doctor who medically examined the victim, no injury was found on the person of the victim. It is thus urged that the medical evidence does not support the ocular version of the occurrence. As per the statement of the doctor, in case any offence as complained of is committed and the medical examination is conducted within 24 hours, injury is bound to be seen on the person of the victim. On the above factual and legal premise, the learned counsel for revisionist therefore, submits that revisionist is liable to be enlarged on bail.
11. Even otherwise, revisionist is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to to his credit except the present one. In case, revisionist is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. As such, revisionist be enlarged on bail.
12. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since revisionist is a named as well as charge sheeted/convicted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. Offence complained of is highly immaterial and a crime against society. As such, revisionist does not merit any indeulgence by this Court. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for revisionist with reference to the record at this stage.
13. Having heard, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, complicity of revisionist, gravity and nature of offence, accusations made and coupled with the fact that as per the opinion of the doctor who medically examined the victim, the commission of the offence alleged appears to be doubtful. Considering the age of the revisionist, the clean antecedents of revisionist, the possibility of the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 being granted in favour of revisionist and also the period of incarceration undergone but without making any comments on the merits of the case, revisionist has made out a case for bail.
14. It is thus provided that the effect and operation of the judgment and order dated 19.01.2015 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, in Criminal Case No. 408 of 2010 (State Vs. Laxmi Kant Shukla others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1171 of 2009 under Section 377 I.P.C. Police Station Chopan District Sonbhadra as well as judgment and order dated 29.11.2021 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court (CAW) Sonbhadra in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2015 (Laxmikant Shukla Vs. State of U.P.) shall remain stayed till the pendency of revision.
15. Let the revisionist be released on bail in Case Crime No. 1171 of 2009, under Section 377 I.P.C., Police Station-Chopan, District-Sonbhadra on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
16. List for hearing in due course.
Order Date :- 2.4.2024
Imtiyaz
