SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Vijay Chaudhari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 July, 2018

1

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No.3685/2017
Criminal Appeal No.3772/2017

Dated: 02.07.2018
Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the
appellants in CRA No.3685/2017 and Shri Jayant
Neekhra, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA
No.3772/2017.
Shri A.K.Singh, learned Govt. Advocate for
the respondent-State.

Heard on admission.

Admit.

Also heard on IA No.17814/2017 and IA
No.18161/2017, which are the applications under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of
sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of
appellants Vijay Chaudhri, Abhilash Singh, Vinod
More and Shyam Shukla.

The appellants are convicted under Section
304 (Part-II) read with Section 34 of IPC and
sentenced to RI for five years with fine of
Rs.2,000/- with default clause.

The allegation against the present appellants
is that on the date of incident i.e. on 31.8.2012 the
appellants poured kerosene oil over deceased
Rahul Joshi and set him on fire due to which he
suffered 36% burn injuries and on 3.9.2012 due to
septicemia he succumbed to the injuries. Before
he passed away, he also gave a dying declaration
2

(Ex.P-9) which was recorded by the Executive
Magistrate in which clear allegations against the
present appellants have been made.

Learned counsel for the appellants have
submitted that the appellants have been falsely
implicated in the case, inasmuch as the dying
declaration (Ex.P-9) cannot be relied upon to base
the conviction of the appellants, as the same is
doubtful, which is also apparent from the
deposition of Dr. Piyush (PW-4), who has admitted
that both the endorsement made on the dying
declaration were made by him simultaneously
after the statement was recorded. He has further
stated in para 8 that the statement was recorded
before him.

Learned counsel for the appellants have
further submitted that the place of incident is also
doubtful, as the Investigating Officer Jayant
Aglave (PW-16) has admitted that he had found
some burn marks at the deceased’s home. It is
further submitted that a case of suicide has been
projected as a case of assault. It is further
submitted that the appellants are in jail for more
than two years out of five years’ RI. Under these
circumstances, it is prayed that the appellants be
enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the
State has opposed the prayer of the appellants,
and has submitted that the dying declaration is
3

unequivocal about the involvement of the
appellants.

After considering the rival submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and going through
the record, this Court finds that the appellants
have made out a case for suspension of jail
sentence. Accordingly, the present applications
(IA No.17814/17 IA No.18161/17) is allowed
subject to depositing the fine amount before the
trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellants
namely Vijay Chaudhari, Abhilash Singh and Vinod
More in CRA No.3685/2017 and appellant Shyam
Shukla in CRA No.3772/2017 deposit the entire
fine amount before the trial Court, then the
execution of their jail sentence shall remain
suspended and they be released on bail on their
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) each with
one surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 22/10/2018
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the
office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

Digitally signed by MANZOOR
(Subodh Abhyankar)
AHMED
Date: 2018.07.03 16:55:15 +05’30’
Judge
Ansari
4

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No.1117/2016

Dated: 20.06.2018
Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel
for the appellant.

Shri D.K.Paroha, learned Govt. Advocate for
the respondent-State.

Heard on IA No.8122/2016, which is a
application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on
behalf of appellant Pappu @ Dhanraj Lodhi.

The appellant is convicted under Sections
306 and 498-A of IPC and sentenced to RI for five
years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and RI for two years
with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause.

Considering the statements of Prabhulal (PW-

5), brother of deceased Chhotibai, as also Mohar
Singh (PW-9), father of the deceased and Kala Bai
(PW-10), mother of the deceased, no case is made
out for suspension of jail sentence of the
appellant. Accordingly, IA No.8122/2016 is hereby
dismissed.

However, looking to the period of
incarceration of the appellant, which is around
two years, office is directed to list the matter for
final hearing under the caption of “High Court
Expedite Matters”.

5

After going through the record as also
statement made by the prosecutrix, the present
application (IA No.579/18) is allowed subject to
depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant
deposits the entire fine amount before the trial
Court, then the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Bhailal Saket shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one
surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 22/10/2018 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office
from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(Subodh Abhyankar)
Judge

Ansari
6

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No.5984/2017

Dated: 22.06.2018
Shri Ankit Nema, Advocate on behalf of Shri
SD Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Sharad Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate
for the respondent-State.

Heard on admission.

Admit.

Also heard on IA No.579/2018, which is a
application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on
behalf of appellant Bhailal Saket.

The appellant is convicted under Sections
342 and 376 read with Section 511 of IPC and
sentenced to RI for one year with fine of Rs.1000/-
and RI for five years with fine of Rs.2,000/- with
default clause.

After going through the record as also
statement made by the prosecutrix, the present
application (IA No.579/18) is allowed subject to
depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant
deposits the entire fine amount before the trial
Court, then the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Bhailal Saket shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one
7

surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 22/10/2018 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office
from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(Subodh Abhyankar)
Judge

Ansari
8

HIGHT COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No.1300/2018

Dated: 09.05.2018
Shri Kam Sharan Rathore, learned counsel
for the appellant.

Shri Manish Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate
for the respondent-State.

Heard on admission.

Admit.

Heard on IA No.2521/2018, which is a
application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on
behalf of appellant Hari Prasad.

The appellant is convicted under Section 409
read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to RI
for five years with fine of Rs.50,000/- with default
clause.

Considering the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and looking to the
facts circumstances of the case specially the
fact that the appellant has already undergone the
substantive jail sentence, the present application
(IA No.2521/18) is allowed subject to depositing
the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant
deposits the entire fine amount before the trial
Court, then the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Hari Prasad shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his
9

furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one
surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 22/10/2018 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office
from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(Subodh Abhyankar)
Judge

Ansari
10

HIGHT COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR
Criminal Appeal No.1246/2018

Dated: 09.05.2018
Shri K.S.Rajput, learned counsel for the
appellant.

Shri Manish Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate
for the respondent-State.

Heard on admission.

Admit.

Heard on IA No.2432/2018, which is a
application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on
behalf of appellant Manglesh Uike.

The appellant is convicted under Section 409
read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to RI
for five years with fine of Rs.50,000/- with default
clause.

Considering the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and looking to the
facts circumstances of the case specially the
fact that the appellant has already undergone the
substantive jail sentence, the present application
(IA No.2432/18) is allowed subject to depositing
the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant
deposits the entire fine amount before the trial
Court, then the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Manglesh Uike shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his
11

furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one
surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction
of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 22/10/2018 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office
from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(Subodh Abhyankar)
Judge

Ansari
12

Criminal Appeal No.1327/2015
26.08.2015
Shri AD Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.9622/2015, a application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Sections 376(2)(n), 363, 366 of IPC and sentenced to maximum
period of ten years’ RI with total fine of Rs.1200/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty
granted to him. He is ready to deposit the fine amount before the
trial Court. According to the educational record, the prosecutrix
was 17 years and 8 months old. In the ossification test, she was
found to be 15 to 16 years of age, however two years may be
added in computation of age while considering the ossification
test. When the prosecutrix (PW-1) was examined, the trial Court
has marked her age to be 18 years of age. The prosecutrix was
definitely above 18 years of age. According to her statement, she
remained with the appellant for a longer period without any
resistance. No alleged offence is made out against the appellant.
There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution
of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn
infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

13

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.9622/15 is allowed subject to depositing the
fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the entire
fine amount before the trial Court, then the execution of jail
sentence of appellant namely Ajay @ Ajju shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 26/10/2015 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
14

Criminal Appeal No.1394/2015
14.08.2015
Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.10423/2015, a application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellants No.2 and 3.

The appellants No.2 and 3 have been convicted of offence
punishable under Section 368 of IPC and sentenced to seven
years’ of RI with fine of Rs.500.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was
alleged against the co-accused that he committed rape upon the
prosecutrix. However, the prosecutrix (PW-2) in para 2 of her
statement has accepted that when she was taken by the co-
accused to the house of appellants No.2 and 3, the co-accused
told the appellants No.2 and 3 that the prosecutrix was their
daughter-in-law. However, the prosecutrix did not say that she
contradicted such fact before the appellants. She resided with
the appellants for a longer time and they though that the
prosecutrix was wife of the co-accused. No offence under
Section 368 of IPC is made out against the present appellants.
There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution
of sentence is not suspended, then their appeal may turn
infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on
bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

15

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.10423/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellants No.2 and 3 namely Sunder Singh Pradhan and
Rambai Pradhan shall remain suspended and they be released
on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) each with one
surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on
29/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office
from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
16

Criminal Appeal No.1315/2015
10.08.2015
Shri Shailendra Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Learned counsel for the State takes notice on behalf of the
State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.9508/2015, a application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellants.

The appellant has been convicted of offence punishable
under Section 397 of IPC and sentenced to seven years’ of RI.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a youth of 25 years of age. There was no named FIR
against the appellants, though he was identified in the test
identification parade and memo Ex.P-46 was prepared. But the
victim Krishna Prasad (PW-11), who identified the appellant has
accepted in the cross examination that the appellant was shown
to him prior to arrangement of test identification parade. It is
alleged that some diesel was recovered from the appellant,
which was not identifiable. The chain of circumstantial evidence
is broken. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if
execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may
turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

17

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.9508/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Ramdas shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety bond in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 1/10/2015 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
18

Criminal Appeal No.1298/2015
10.08.2015
Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Learned counsel for the State takes notice on behalf of the
State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.9358/2015, a application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellants.

The appellants have been convicted of offence punishable
under Sections 397 of IPC and sentenced to seven years’ of RI,
whereas appellant Gorelal @ Krishnapal Loniya is also
convicted of offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act
and sentenced to one year’s RI with fine of Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was
no named FIR against the appellants, though they were
identified in the test identification parade and memo Ex.P-46
was prepared. However, the victim Krishna Prasad (PW-11),
who identified the appellants has accepted in para 9 of his
statement that there was dark and therefore he could not see the
actual culprit. However, the culprits were shown to him at the
police station and thereafter he could identify them. Similarly,
only some diesel has been recovered from the appellants and no
specific identification of such diesel could be shown. It is also
alleged that one bucket was recovered from the appellant Shiv
Kumar, however there was no specific identification mark
shown by victim Krishna Prasad (PW-11) as to how he
19

identified the bucket. Actually the bucket was in possession of
the cleaner of the truck and cleaner could identify that bucket.
Such bucket is easily available in the house of various citizen.
The chain of circumstantial evidence is broken. There are fair
chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is
not suspended, then their appeal may turn infructuous.
Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellants be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.9358/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellants namely Gorelal @ Krishnapal and Shiv Kumar
Patwar @ Guddu shall remain suspended and they be released
on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) each with one surety bond
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 1/10/2015 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
20

Criminal Appeal No.290/2010
10.08.2015
Shri Himanshu Chourasiya, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.15298/2015, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Sections 392/397, 506 (II) of IPC and sentenced to 7 years’ RI
with fine of Rs.1000/- and one year’s RI with fine of Rs.500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
was on bail, but he could not appear before the office of this
Court on 19.12.2013 and thereafter the appellant went to Delhi
to earn his livelihood, therefore he could not appear before the
office of this Court nor he could not inform his counsel. To
show his bonafide intention, the appellant is ready to deposit a
sum of Rs.10,000/- from his previous bail bond amount and he
assures that he will appear regularly before the office of this
Court. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution
of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released
on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.15298/15 is allowed subject to depositing a
sum of Rs.10,000/- from his previous bonds.

It is directed that if the appellant produces a receipt of
deposit of Rs.10000/- from his previous bond before the trial
21

Court, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely
Mohd. Azhar @ Majhar @ Saddam shall remain suspended
and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one
surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on
5/10/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office
from time to time. It is also directed that recovery of
compensation is also suspended.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
22

Criminal Appeal No.2661/2013
10.08.2015
Shri PS Gaharwar, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.4694/2015, a repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence Default sentence
Under Section
498-A of IPC RI for 3 years with RI for 2 months
fine of Rs.1000/-

304-B of IPC RI for 7 years
306 of IPC RI for 7 years with RI for two months
fine of Rs.1000/-
4 of Dowry RI for one year RI for two months
Prohibition Act with fine of
Rs.1000/-

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty
granted to him. At present he is in custody since 27.9.2013.
Champa Devi (PW-1) mother of the deceased has stated that as
and when the deceased came to her house, she intimated about the
dowry demand and harassment done by the appellant, however she
has accepted that the deceased came to her house for three times,
but in the cross examination she has accepted that in first two
times she was sent to the house of the appellant without any
problem, but in third time it is alleged that the deceased wanted to
return after the festival of Holi, but the appellant wanted to take
her before Holi. It is also alleged by Champa Devi that the
appellant wrote a letter to the deceased claiming excuse. However
no such letter has been filed by Champa Devi before the trial
23

Court. The parents of the deceased were not in a position to give
motorcycle or cash of Rs.20,000/- and the appellant never
demanded the same. There are fair chances of success of this
appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his
appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be
released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances of
the case, IA No.4694/15 is allowed subject to depositing the fine
amount.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the entire
fine amount before the trial Court, then the execution of jail
sentence of appellant namely Jitendra Dwivedi @ Guddu shall
remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand)
with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the
trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on
5/10/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office
from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
24

Criminal Appeal No.1154/2015
07.08.2015
Shri RS Patel, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Learned counsel for the State takes notice on behalf of the
State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.11610/2015, a application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Sections 376, 506-II of IPC and sentenced to maximum period
of seven years’ RI with total fine of Rs.1500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty
granted to him. He has already deposited the fine amount before
the trial Court. The prosecutrix (PW-1) had alleged that she had
lodged an FIR when she was pregnant. Looking to her conduct,
she appears to be a consenting party. The documents relating to
assessment of her age were suppressed by the police, and therefore
Dr. DC Chourasiya (DW-1) was called in defence, who examined
the prosecutrix radiologically and found her above 19 years of age.
Hence the prosecutrix was certainly above 18 years of age at the
time of incident. There are fair chances of success of this appeal
and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal
may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution
25

of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released
on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.11610/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Bhangchandra shall remain suspended and
he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 23/9/2015
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
26

Criminal Appeal No.3226/2014
05.08.2015
Shri Manish Datt, Sr. Advocate with Shri Rahul Sharma,
Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.23485/14, an application for taking
documents on record.

Application is allowed. Documents be taken on record.
Also heard on IA No.24430/2014, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence Default sentence
Under Section
450 of IPC RI for 8 years with RI for 1 month
fine of Rs.1000/-

395 of IPC RI for 8 years with RI for 1 month
fine of Rs.1000/-

397 r/w 395 RI for 8 years
323 r/w 149 on 3 RI for one year
counts

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is falsely implicated in the matter. He is a youth 24
years of age. There was no named FIR against the appellant,
whereas the police has arrested the appellant on the next day of
the incident. It is claimed that the appellant and other co-
accused persons have been identified in the test identification
parade, however it would be apparent that the test identification
parade has been arranged after one month of arrest of the
appellant and therefore there was possibility that the appellant
27

would have been seen by the victims when they produced
before the Magisterial Court for judicial remand etc. witness
Ranjana (PW-4) has accepted that she saw the photographs of
the accused persons in a newspaper when she was in the
hospital. Kalpana Patel (PW-5) has refused to see such
photographs, who is real sister of witness Ranjana, and
therefore it cannot be said that one sister had seen the
photograph of the appellant and second sister could not see the
same. Under such circumstances, the identification of the
appellant goes away. So far as the seizure of ornaments is
concerned, a dacoity of huge ornaments is noted by the police
according to complainant Ravendra PW-3), but from each of the
appellant, one ornament is shown to be recovered. The
ornaments were identified by Rashmi (PW-2) and document
Ex.P-1 was prepared, but the identification memo Ex.P-1 was
not referred to witness Rashmi (PW-2) in her examination
before the trial Court. The seized ornaments were not produced
before the witness Rashmi (PW-2), Ravendra (PW-3) as well as
Sub Inspector Arun Singh Baghel (PW-7), who claimed to seize
such ornaments from the appellant and other co-accused
persons, and therefore those ornaments could not be shown to
the witnesses so that they could identify these ornaments before
the trial Court. Under such circumstances, the identification of
the ornaments is not proved beyond doubt. However, the
independent witnesses of seizure have also turned hostile. Sub
Inspector Arun Kumar Bhaghel could not say that what was the
basis so that the appellants could be arrested on next day of the
incident. The entire prosecution story is doubtful. There are fair
chances of success of this appeal and if execution of jail
sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous.

28

Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application. He submits that the chain of circumstantial
evidence is complete and the offence alleged against the
appellant for which he was convicted is duly proved.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.24430/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Krishna Kumar Shukla shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 22/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
29

Ansari
30

Criminal Appeal No.152/2015
05.08.2015
Shri VP Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.878/2015, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant is convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence Default sentence
Under Section
450 of IPC RI for 8 years with RI for 1 month
fine of Rs.1000/-

395 of IPC RI for 8 years with RI for 1 month
fine of Rs.1000/-

397 r/w 395 RI for 8 years
323 r/w 149 on 3 RI for one year
counts

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is falsely implicated in the matter. He is a youth 25
years of age. There was no named FIR against the appellant,
whereas the police has arrested the appellant on the next day of
the incident. It is claimed that the appellant and other co-
accused persons have been identified in the test identification
parade, however it would be apparent that the test identification
parade has been arranged after one month of arrest of the
appellant and therefore there was possibility that the appellant
would have been seen by the victims when they produced
before the Magisterial Court for judicial remand etc. witness
Ranjana (PW-4) has accepted that she saw the photographs of
the accused persons in a newspaper when she was in the
31

hospital. Kalpana Patel (PW-5) has refused to see such
photographs, who is real sister of witness Ranjana, and
therefore it cannot be said that one sister had seen the
photograph of the appellant and second sister could not see the
same. Under such circumstances, the identification of the
appellant goes away. So far as the seizure of ornaments is
concerned, a dacoity of huge ornaments is noted by the police
according to complainant Ravendra PW-3), but from each of the
appellant, one ornament is shown to be recovered. The
ornaments were identified by Rashmi (PW-2) and document
Ex.P-1 was prepared, but the identification memo Ex.P-1 was
not referred to witness Rashmi (PW-2) in her examination
before the trial Court. The seized ornaments were not produced
before the witness Rashmi (PW-2), Ravendra (PW-3) as well as
Sub Inspector Arun Singh Baghel (PW-7), who claimed to seize
such ornaments from the appellant and other co-accused
persons, and therefore those ornaments could not be shown to
the witnesses so that they could identify these ornaments before
the trial Court. Under such circumstances, the identification of
the ornaments is not proved beyond doubt. However, the
independent witnesses of seizure have also turned hostile. Sub
Inspector Arun Kumar Bhaghel could not say that what was the
basis so that the appellants could be arrested on next day of the
incident. The entire prosecution story is doubtful. There are fair
chances of success of this appeal and if execution of jail
sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous.
Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application. He submits that the chain of circumstantial
32

evidence is complete and the offence alleged against the
appellant for which he was convicted is duly proved.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.878/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Ramshankar Chaturvedi shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 22/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.
List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
33
34

Criminal Appeal No.3244/2014
05.08.2015
Shri HS Dubey, Sr. Advocate with Shri Rajesh Tiwari,
Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Learned counsel for the State takes notice on behalf of the
State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.24432/2014, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence Default sentence
Under Section
450 of IPC RI for 8 years with RI for 1 month
fine of Rs.1000/-

395 of IPC RI for 8 years with RI for 1 month
fine of Rs.1000/-

             397 r/w 395      RI for 8 years
323 r/w 149 on 3 RI for one year
counts

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is falsely implicated in the matter. He is a youth 19
years of age. There was no named FIR against the appellant,
whereas the police has arrested the appellant on the next day of
the incident. It is claimed that the appellant and other co-
accused persons have been identified in the test identification
parade, however it would be apparent that the test identification
parade has been arranged after one month of arrest of the
35

appellant and therefore there was possibility that the appellant
would have been seen by the victims when they produced
before the Magisterial Court for judicial remand etc. witness
Ranjana (PW-4) has accepted that she saw the photographs of
the accused persons in a newspaper when she was in the
hospital. Kalpana Patel (PW-5) has refused to see such
photographs, who is real sister of witness Ranjana, and
therefore it cannot be said that one sister had seen the
photograph of the appellant and second sister could not see the
same. Under such circumstances, the identification of the
appellant goes away. So far as the seizure of ornaments is
concerned, a dacoity of huge ornaments is noted by the police
according to complainant Ravendra PW-3), but from each of the
appellant, one ornament is shown to be recovered. The
ornaments were identified by Rashmi (PW-2) and document
Ex.P-1 was prepared, but the identification memo Ex.P-1 was
not referred to witness Rashmi (PW-2) in her examination
before the trial Court. The seized ornaments were not produced
before the witness Rashmi (PW-2), Ravendra (PW-3) as well as
Sub Inspector Arun Singh Baghel (PW-7), who claimed to seize
such ornaments from the appellant and other co-accused
persons, and therefore those ornaments could not be shown to
the witnesses so that they could identify these ornaments before
the trial Court. Under such circumstances, the identification of
the ornaments is not proved beyond doubt. However, the
independent witnesses of seizure have also turned hostile. Sub
Inspector Arun Kumar Bhaghel could not say that what was the
basis so that the appellants could be arrested on next day of the
incident. The entire prosecution story is doubtful. There are fair
chances of success of this appeal and if execution of jail
36

sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous.
Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application. He submits that the chain of circumstantial
evidence is complete and the offence alleged against the
appellant for which he was convicted is duly proved.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.24432/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Yogesh Dubey shall remain suspended and he
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand) with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22/9/2015
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
37

Criminal Appeal No.4/2013
16.07.2015
Shri RB Gautam, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.13881/2015, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Sections 394, 397of IPC and Section 25(1)(i-B)(b) of the Arms
Act and sentenced to maximum period of seven years' RI with
total fine of Rs.1500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the victim
Monu (PW-6) did not identify the appellant before the Court,
though named FIR has been lodged against the appellant. It was
alleged that one mobile was recovered from the appellant,
however no identification of that mobile was done after its
seizure. The identity number of that mobile was mentioned in
the seizure memo, but it was not established that it was the same
mobile robbed from the victim Monu. The chain of
circumstantial evidence is broken. Prima facie no offence under
Section 394 or 397 of IPC is made out against the appellant. He
remained in the custody for three years, and therefore the
sentence of offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act has
already been executed. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution
of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released
on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

38

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.13881/15 is allowed subject to depositing the
fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by
the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant
namely Pappu Khan shall remain suspended and he be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 14/9/2015 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time. It is also directed that recovery of compensation is also
suspended.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
39

Criminal Appeal No.1593/2015
15.07.2015

Shri Narayan Dubey, counsel for the appellant. Ms.
Surbhi Nigam, Dy. Government Advocate for the respon-
dent/ State.

Heard on IA No.13264/15, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant has been convicted under Section 8/20(B)

(ii)(B) of the N.D.P.S. Act and sentenced to two years' rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.15,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the police
had received an intimation that the main accused Chandan Ben
had some Ganja at his house and he was selling the same with
the help of appellant. After making a raid, the Investigating
Officer seized 3.600 kgs of Ganja from the house of Chandan
Ben. The presence of the appellant is nowhere shown in any of
the documents. It is not shown that any search of the appellant
was taken at the place. There is no indication that the appellant
was present at the time of such raid. Nothing has been seized
from the appellant. There is nobody to say that the appellant
was selling Ganja from that house. Under such circumstances,
there is no evidence against the appellant that he had any Ganja
at his exclusive possession or that he was selling Ganja. There
are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of
sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous.
Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellant be released on bail. It is also
40

submitted that the recovery of compensation may also be
stayed.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.13264/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Lallu @ Jagdish Sonkar shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 16/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
41

Ansari
42

Criminal Appeal No.193/2014
25.06.2015
Shri AK Chouhan, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.9029/2015, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Sections 363, 366, 376(2)(N) of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO
Act and sentenced to maximum period of ten years' RI with
total fine of Rs.4000/-. Compensation of Rs.25,000/- was also
granted to the prosecutrix.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in
custody from the first date of arrest. The prosecutrix was shown
to be 17 years of age, but the educational record which was
submitted before the trial Court is not prepared by the person,
who accepted the prosecutrix in the school for the first time.
There is no basis to show the authentic entry relating to date of
birth was informed to the school. The parents of the prosecutrix
are illiterate. Looking to the physical appearance of the
prosecutrix as depicted by the concerned Dr. Priti Bala (PW-5),
it appears that the prosecutrix was above 18 years of age. The
FIR was lodged with a delay of ten days. Looking to the
conduct of the prosecutrix, she appears to be a consenting party.
There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution
of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn
infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

43

It is also submitted that the recovery of compensation may also
be stayed.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.9029/15 is allowed subject to depositing the
fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by
the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant
namely Narottam Rajput shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 11/9/2015 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time. It is also directed that recovery of compensation is also
suspended.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
44

Criminal Appeal No.331/2015
25.06.2015
Shri Jafar Khan, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Learned counsel for the State takes notice on behalf of the
State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.2138/2015, a repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC and sentenced to maximum period
of five years' RI with total fine of Rs.3000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was
no allegation against the appellant relating to dowry demand. It
was alleged by the parents of the deceased that the applicant had
suspicion on the deceased that she was talking with an unknown
person on her mobile phone provided by the appellant. The
deceased had an opportunity to redress her problem. She could
go to the house of her parents. Under these circumstances, the
allegations made against the appellant do not fall within the
purview of Section 107 or 109 of IPC, and therefore prima facie
no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the
appellant. The appellant remained in the custody for seven
month during the trial and he is in custody for five months
during the appeal, and therefore his sentence offence under
Section 498-A of IPC may reduce to the period for which he
45

remained in the custody. There are fair chances of success of
this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then
his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be
released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.2138/15 is allowed subject to depositing the
fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by
the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant
namely Sunil Malviya shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 14/9/2015
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
46

Criminal Appeal No.983/2015
25.06.2015
Shri S.K.Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.6584/14, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced to seven years RI with fine
of Rs.5000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty
granted to him. The prosecutrix is shown to be 24 years old girl.
No external injury was found on her person though it is alleged
that rape was committed at a place in the jungle. The prosecutrix
(PW-1) has accepted that she reached to her house at about 8:00
AM in the morning, but the FIR was lodged with a delay of 12
hours. No reason has been shown about such delay. Under such
circumstances, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the
prosecutrix was a consenting party. There are fair chances of
success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not
suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is
prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.6584/15 is hereby allowed.

47

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Chandan @ Kapil Bhatt shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 11/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time. It is directed that
the recovery of fine amount shall remained suspended.
Case be listed for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari.

48

Criminal Appeal No.2521/2013
19.06.2015
Shri Amit Garg, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.10808/2015, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to seven
years' RI with fine of Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is
alleged against the appellant that he extorted the co-accused
Manoj to fire upon the victim and thereafter he fired from a
pistol causing fatal injuries to the victim. However, he was not
the main culprit. He remained in custody for four years and four
months. There is possibility that his sentence may be reduced to
the period for which he has already undergone in the custody.
Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.10808/15 is allowed subject to depositing the
fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by
the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant
namely Yagyasen Kushwaha (Verma) @ Jagga shall remain
49

suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 11/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
50

Criminal Appeal No.2658/2014
17.06.2015
Smt. Archana Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.3963/2015, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Section 369 of IPC and sentenced to seven years' RI with fine of
Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
was on bail during the trial and she did not misuse the liberty
granted to her. Though she is convicted under Section 369 of IPC,
but there is no evidence that the kidnapped child had any ornament
or any property, which could be taken by the appellant. Hence
prima facie no offence under Section 369 of IPC is made out
against the appellant. At the most offence under Section 363 of
IPC may constitute. The appellant has already remained for three
years and that would be the sufficient sentence for the offence
under Section 363 of IPC. Under these circumstances, if execution
of sentence is not suspended, then her appeal may turn
infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances of
the case, IA No.3963/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine
amount before the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence
51

of appellant namely Anoopa Bai shall remain suspended and she
be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 8/9/2015 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
52

Criminal Appeal No.2581/2014
15.06.2015
Shri Arvind Soni, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.8035/2015, a repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Sections 363, 354 of IPC and Sections 7/8 and 11/12 of POCSO
Act, and sentenced to 4 years' RI with fine of Rs.1000/-, 2 years'
RI with fine of Rs.500/-, 3 years' RI with fine of Rs.500/- and 3
years' RI with fine of Rs.500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty
granted to him. He remained for one year in the custody. Looking
to the gravity of offence and age of the appellant, his sentence may
be reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody
except of offence under Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act. Actually the
definition of sexual assault is given under Section 7 of that Act.
According to that definition, the appellant did not commit the
offence of sexual assault and there is possibility of success of
appeal for offence under Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act in which a
minimum sentence is prescribed. The appellant is a youth of 25
years of age and if he is not enlarged on bail, then his future will
be spoiled. Under these circumstances, if execution of sentence is
not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it
is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

53

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances of
the case, IA No.8035/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the entire
fine amount before the trial Court, then the execution of jail
sentence of appellant namely Harcharan Dhemmar shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with
one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on
1/9/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office
from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
54

Criminal Appeal No.3438/2014
15.05.2015
Shri BJ Chourasiya, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.23969/2014, a application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Section 326 of IPC and sentenced to five years' of RI with fine
of Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. It is alleged against the appellant that he
assaulted the victim Ramswaroop by a sharp cutting weapon
causing disfiguration to him. However, there is no allegation
that he assaulted second time to the victim. The victim is 58
years old, and therefore disfiguration has no much meaning for
him. There are fair chances that his sentence may be reduced for
which he remained in the custody. If execution of sentence is
not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore,
it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.23969/14 is allowed.

55

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Lakhan shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 29/6/2015 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
56

Criminal Appeal No.3577/2014
13.03.2015
Shri Hemant Sen, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh, Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.4621/14, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Section 376-D of IPC and sentenced to 20 years RI with fine of
Rs.10000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
prosecutrix was a mentally retarded child. The prosecutrix (PW-

6) was examined with help of one expert interpreter and she had
accepted in para 7 of her cross examination that the appellant
was shown to her at the police station, and therefore the
identification proceeding of the child looses its evidentiary
value. Mohd. Anwar (PW-2)-father of the prosecutrix and Smt.
Sakina (PW-3)-mother of the prosecutrix have turned hostile.
The FIR was lodged with delay of 9-10 days. It would be
apparent that the appellant is convicted on the basis of suspicion
only. There was no cognate evidence against him. A heavy fine
has been imposed upon the appellant. Therefore, it is prayed
that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present
appellant be released on bail. Also recovery of fine be
suspended.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

57

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.4621/15 is hereby allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Ajay Nai shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 1/5/2015 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time. It is directed that the recovery of fine amount shall
remained suspended.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari.

58

Criminal Appeal No.3457/2014
05.03.2015
Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akhilendra Singh, Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard on admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Learned counsel for the State takes notice on behalf of the
State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.23651/14, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Section 376-D of IPC and sentenced to 20 years RI with fine of
Rs.10000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
prosecutrix was a mentally retarded child. The prosecutrix (PW-

6) was examined with help of one expert interpreter and she had
accepted in para 7 of her cross examination that the appellant
was shown to her at the police station, and therefore the
identification proceeding of the child looses its evidentiary
value. Mohd. Anwar (PW-2)-father of the prosecutrix and Smt.
Sakina (PW-3)-mother of the prosecutrix have turned hostile.
The FIR was lodged with delay of 9-10 days. It would be
apparent that the appellant is convicted on the basis of suspicion
only. There was no cognate evidence against him. A heavy fine
has been imposed upon the appellant. Therefore, it is prayed
that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present
59

appellant be released on bail. Also recovery of fine be
suspended.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.23651/14 is hereby allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Motu @ Bhanu Pratap Gond shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 1/5/2015 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time. It is directed that
the recovery of fine amount shall remained suspended.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari.

60

Ansari
61

Criminal Appeal No.3345/2014
16.02.2015
Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.24060/14, an application for urgent
hearing.

Application is allowed.

Also heard on admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Learned counsel for the State takes notice on behalf of the
State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.22925/14, an application under Section 389
(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
appellant and IA No.22929/14, an application under Section 424
of Cr.P.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced to ten years RI with fine of
Rs.4000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
is a youth of 22 years of age, who was on bail during the trial. The
prosecutrix (PW0-5) has accepted that she was a woman of 22
years of age and she had relations with the appellant since long.
She permitted for cohabitation to the appellant on his assurance of
marriage. Under such circumstances, the prosecutrix was a
consenting party. No alleged offence is made out against the
appellant. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if
execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn
infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

62

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances of
the case, both the IAs are allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits a fine
amount of Rs.10,000/- before the trial Court, then the execution of
jail sentence of appellant namely Brajesh Burman shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal
bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one
surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 21/4/2015
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time. It is directed that the recovery of remaining fine amount
shall remained suspended.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
63

Criminal Appeal No.1048/2013
13.02.2015
Shri Hemant Sen, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.2118/15, a application under Section 389
(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
appellant No.2 Vijay Kumar Sen @ Lalli.

The appellant No.2 is convicted of offence punishable
under Section 8/20(b)(II)(B) of NDPS Act and sentenced to five
years' RI with fine of Rs.1000/-

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial. He has deposited the fine
amount before the trial Court. The co-appellant Rakesh Pandy
has already been released on bail vide order dated 5.7.2013 and
the case of the present appellant No.2 is similar to co-appellant
Rakesh Pandey. The appellant remained in the custody for two
years and three months and there is possibility that his sentence
may be reduced to the period for which he has already
undergone in the custody. Under such circumstances, it is
prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.2118/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Vijay Kumar Sen @ Lalli shall remain
64

suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 28/4/2015 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
65

Criminal Appeal No.3113/2014
12.02.2015
Shri PK Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sameer Chile, Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.21470/14, a application under Section 389
(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Sections 363 and 376(1) of IPC and sentenced to maximum period
of ten years RI with total fine of Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that according to
the version of the prosecutrix (PW-2), she remained with the
appellant for a lengthy period at various places. Her age was
shown to be 17 years and 7 months according to her date of birth
shown by the educational record. In the ossification test, she was
found to be 17-18 years of age. There is no document shown by
the prosecution that her date of birth was recorded at the school
with help of any documentary basis. The prosecutrix was above 18
years of age and she was a consenting party. No alleged offence is
made out against the appellant. There are fair chances of success
of this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then
his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be
released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances of
the case, IA No.21470/14 is allowed.

66

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Pradeep Kumar shall remain suspended and he
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 28/4/2015 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
67

Criminal Appeal No.3165/2014
12.02.2015
Shri Manoj Patel, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sameer Chile, Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.22201/14, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Section 392 of IPC and sentenced to two years' RI with fine of
Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a youth of 21 years of age, who is in custody since
11.4.2013 in the present case and if the application is not
allowed, then his appeal may turn infructuous in the month of
April, 2015. There are fair chances that his sentence may be
reduced to the period for which he remained in the custody.
Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.22201/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Rajesh Meena shall remain suspended and he
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their
68

appearance before the Registry of this Court on 28/4/2015 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
69

Criminal Appeal No.3299/2014
12.02.2015
Shri Anoop Saxena, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sameer Chile, Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.22621/14, a application under Section 389
(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 506 of IPC and sentenced to
maximum period of ten years RI with total fine of Rs.6000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
was on bail during the trial. The prosecutrix had lodged an FIR
with delay that she was carrying with fetus of 8 ½ months. In the
ossification test, her age was found to be 17-18 years of age. She
has admitted in the cross examination that her mother expired 16-
17 years prior to the incident and she has a younger brother who is
3-4 years younger to the prosecutrix, and therefore according to
her own admission, her age at the time of alleged incident was
found above 18 years of age. Also in the report given by the FSL
Sagar Ex.P-20 it was found that the appellant was not the
biological father of the child born to the prosecutrix and hence the
allegation made by the prosecutrix appears to be incorrect. It
appears that the guilt of anyone else is shifted upon the appellant.
There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of
sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous.
Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

70

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances of
the case, IA No.22621/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Neetesh shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 23/4/2015 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
71

Criminal Appeal No.25/2013
06.02.2015
Shri Aditya Adhikari, Sr. Advocate with Shri Satyam
Agrawal, Advocate for the appellants.

Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.1140/15, a repeat application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant No.1 whereas his earlier application was dismissed
being withdrawn.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Sections 304-B, 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act and sentenced to maximum period of ten years RI with total
fine of Rs.400/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
is a youth of 25 years of age, who was on bail during the trial and
he has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. The
deceased was the wife of the appellant, who died after 4-5 years of
her marriage. She died on 7.10.2008 and her parents kept silence
for more than a month and they made omnibus allegations relating
to dowry demand and harassment. All the witnesses have stated
that there was demand of the appellant No.1 to get a motorcycle
from the parents of the deceased. However, Shivnarayan (PW-5)
father of the deceased has stated that he knew about the demand
and the deceased was detained in his house for 2-3 times during
her lifetime. However, Rekha (PW-1) sister of the deceased,
Meera Bai (PW-15) mother of the deceased did not corroborate the
story of the detention of the deceased to the house of her parents.
Various witnesses have stated that the deceased was complaining
about the harassment and dowry demand from time to time, but
Rekha (PW-1) sister of the deceased has clearly stated that she
72

knew for the first time when she went to meet the deceased 4-5
days before her death. If there was continuous harassment from
the side of appellant No.1 to the deceased, then Rekha would have
knowledge about that fact. It appears that after examination of
witness Rekha before the Court, the remaining relatives of the
deceased have turned their statements and they alleged about the
concerned demand for a longer period. However, Shivnarayan
(PW-5) father of the deceased and Pushpa (PW-4) have accepted
that in first three years of marriage of the deceased, there was no
harassment towards her, hence it was not possible for the appellant
No.1 to start such a demand in 4 th year of her marriage. The
deceased was pregnant having pregnancy of seven months at the
time of her death, and it was not possible for the appellant No.1 to
harass her for dowry demand so that she could commit suicide.
Under these circumstances, the allegations made against the
appellant No.1 are incorrect. There are fair chances of success of
this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his
appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant No.1
be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances of
the case, IA No.1140/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant No.1 namely Jaswant shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their
73

appearance before the Registry of this Court on 122/4/2015 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
74

Ansari
75

Criminal Appeal No.2934/2014
29.01.2015
Shri Manoj Patel, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Sameer Chile, Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.20345/14, a application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Section 392 of IPC and sentenced to five years' RI with fine of
Rs.500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant remained in custody since 15.4.2013. There was no
named FIR against the appellant. The main victim Nitin (PW-2),
who identified the appellant as well as various articles seized
from the appellant has accepted in para 8 and 9 of his evidence
that the appellant was shown to him by the police before
arrangement of the test identification parade. Similarly, all the
seized articles were shown to him before arrangement of their
identification. Under such circumstances, the evidence of test
identification parade of the appellant as well as articles goes
away. There is no cognate circumstantial evidence against the
appellant to implicate him with the alleged crime. There are fair
chances of success of this appeal and if execution of sentence is
not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore,
it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

76

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.20345/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Rajesh Meena shall remain suspended and he
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 16/4/2015 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
77

Ansari
78

Criminal Appeal No.2810/2014
16.01.2015
Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.22464/15, a repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Sections 376 and 450 of IPC and sentenced to maximum period
of ten years' of RI with total fine of Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial. He has already deposited
the fine amount before the trial Court. It is alleged against the
appellant that he committed upon the prosecutrix (PW-6), a
married woman aged 32 years. According to the prosecution
story, Rahul (PW-9), child of the prosecutrix was sleeping
nearby the prosecutrix. However, Rahul in his case dairy
statement did not say that he was sleeping at the time of incident
and if he was not sleeping, then the appellant could not commit
any crime in his presence. If he was sleeping, then it is not
stated by the prosecutrix that she shouted in the beginning. She
claims that Rahul woke up after completion of the crime. Such
statement and contradictions between the statement of Rahul
and his case diary statement, it appears that the prosecutrix was
a consenting party. She did not make any hue and cry at the time
of the incident and when Rahul woke up and other witnesses
came to the spot, a false case has been lodged by the prosecutrix
against the appellant otherwise the prosecutrix was a consenting
party. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if
79

execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may
turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.22464/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Sevak Yadav shall remain suspended and he
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 17/3/2015 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
80

Ansari
81

Criminal Appeal No.1975/2013
13.01.2015
Ms Sarita Acharya, Advocate for the appellant.
Sheri Sameer Chile, Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.422/15, a repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Sections 376(1), 366-A, 363 of IPC and Sections 3/4 of POCSO
Act and sentenced to maximum period of ten years' of RI with
total fine of Rs.12000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial. The age of the prosecutrix
was above 16 years of age. The FIR was lodged with a delay of
six hours. No external or internal injury was found on the
person of the prosecutrix though it is alleged that a rape was
committed upon her in a open field. Looking to the entire
evidence given by the prosecutrix (PW-7), it appears that her
version appears to be unnatural. Therefore, either she was a
consenting party or she has falsely implicated the applicant in
the matter. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and if
execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may
turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

82

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.422/15 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Rajesh shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 17/3/2015 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
83

Criminal Appeal No.2269/2012
12.01.2015
Sheri Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Sheri Sameer Chile, Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.21897/14, an application under Section 389
(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the
appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Sections 394, 376(2)(g), 506(II) of IPC and sentenced to
maximum period of ten years' of RI with total fine of Rs.14000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
was not previous convict. He was on bail during the trial. The
prosecutrix had alleged against three unknown persons that they
committed gang rape upon her. The prosecutrix (PW-1) and eye-
witness Manoj (PW-3) have admitted in their cross examination
that the appellant was shown to them at Police Station Bharveli
District Balaghat and thereafter the test identification parade was
arranged. Under such circumstances, the test identification parade
proceeding has no evidentiary value. There are fair chances that
the appellant may be acquitted. If execution of sentence is not
suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is
prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances of
the case, IA No.21897/14 is allowed.

84

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Ganesh shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10/3/2015 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Also heard on IA No.30738/14, an application for urgent
hearing.

Since the main application has already been disposed off,
therefore application for urgent hearing has turned infructious.
Consequently, IA No.30738/14 is hereby dismissed being
infructuous.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
85

Criminal Appeal No.1639/2012
08.01.2015
Shri Ghanshyam Pandey, Advocate for the appellants
No.2 and 3.

Sheri Sameer Chile, Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.21966/14 and IA No. 24203/14,
applications for urgent hearing of IA No.9151/2014.

Applications are allowed.

Heard on IA No.9151/2014, a application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellants No.2 and 3.

The appellants No.2 and 3 are convicted of offence
punishable under Sections 307/34, 294 and 506(II) of IPC and
sentenced to maximum period of seven years' of RI with total
fine of Rs.2600/-.

Learned counsel for the appellants No.2 and 3 submits
that the appellants No.2 and 3 remained in the custody for
approximately three years. It is alleged against the appellants
No.2 and 3 that they assaulted the victim Preetam on his head
by axes. However, no fracture was caused on the head of the
victim. Doctor who examined the victim one day at Nagpur has
opined that the injuries were of fatal nature, but it appears that
the appellants No.2 and 3 assaulted the victim on his head
without any force, and therefore no fracture was caused. The
doctor who recorded the MLC of the victim did not fine any
symptom of brain hemorrhage. Hence the injury of the victim
on his head was neither fatal nor grave. There is a possibility
that the conviction of the appellants No.2 and 3 may be reduced
86

to the offence under Section 324/34 of IPC. If execution of
sentence is not suspended, then their appeal may turn
infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellants No.2 and 3 be
released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.9151/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellants No.2 and 3 namely Arvind and Aniruddha shall
remain suspended and they be released on bail on their
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees
forty thousand) each with one surety bond in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before
the Registry of this Court on 9/3/2015 and on subsequent dates
as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
87

Criminal Appeal No.3349/2014
17.12.2014
None for the parties.

Advocates are abstaining from work.

One Atul Patel son of appellant No.9 is present in person.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Copy of memo of appeal be provided in AG office so that
notice of the appeal may be served to the State.

Considered IA No.22955/14, an application for
suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.

Each of the appellant has been convicted of offence under
Sections 148, 452, 427 and 325/149 of IPC and sentenced for
maximum period of four years' RI with total fine of Rs.;2500/-.

After perusal of the record of the trial Court it appears
that the appellants are sentenced for four years' RI relating to
offence under Section 325/149 and three years' RI relating to
offence under Section 452 of IPC. It appears that the allegations
of offence under Section 325 of IPC were made upon the
appellants that someone out of them had assaulted victim Ganga
on his head by a rod, and therefore it is possible that no offence
under Section 452 of IPC may constitute. At the most offence
under Section 451 of IPC may constitute, and therefore sentence
for that offence may be reduced. Similarly, though Dr. Rajesh
Singhai (PW-13) has stated that injury caused to Ganga was
grave in nature. However, in the X-ray, no fracture was found.
The opinion given by Dr. Rajesh Singhai on the basis of Scan
report appears not produced before the trial Court. Also in the
FIR it was alleged that the appellant Manoj assaulted the victim
Ganga on her head, whereas in statement of victim Ganga she
had alleged against one Nandu. It is possible that victim could
88

not see as to who assaulted on her head. Since the injury was
not proved to be grave, there is possibility that the appellants
may be convicted only for offence under Section 323 of IPC and
their sentence may be reduced. Present appeal cannot be
disposed off within next six months. Under such circumstances,
it is good case in which the execution of jail sentence may be
suspended and present appellants may be released on bail.

Consequently, IA No.22955/14 is hereby allowed. It is
directed that if the appellants deposit the fine amount before the
trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of present
appellants shall remain suspended and they be released on bail
on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees twenty five thousand) each with one surety bond in
the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 9/2/2015 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
89

Criminal Appeal No.3390/2013
16.12.2014
Smt. Mehrunnisha Khan, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Brahmdatt Singh, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.19133/2014, a repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Sections 8(B)/20(B)(2)(b) of NDPS Act and sentenced to four
years' RI with fine of Rs.10,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has already deposited the fine amount before the trial
Court. He remained in the custody for more than 14 months. It
is alleged that he had 1.800 kg Ganja with him. The maximum
sentence for keeping one kg Ganja is six months' RI, and
therefore there is possibility that his sentence may be reduced to
the period for which he remained in the custody. There are fair
chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of
sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous.
Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.19133/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Narvadi alias Sanno shall remain suspended
90

and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one
surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on
19/2/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office
from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
91

Criminal Appeal No.997/2014
18.11.2014
Shri Pranay Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.6715/2014, a application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Sections 392 of IPC and Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act and
sentenced to maximum period of seven years' of RI with fine of
Rs.6000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has no criminal past alleged against him. He is a youth
of 21 years of age. He was on bail during the trial from time to
time. However, at present he remained in the custody for more
than 20 months. His sentence imposed of offence under Section
25 of the Arms Act is over. So far as the offence under Section
392 of IPC is concerned, there is no named FIR against the
appellant. The test identification parade was arranged after three
weeks of his arrest. According to the remand application dated
16.5.2011, it appears that he was produced before the concerned
magistrate court with open face, and therefore there was an
opportunity to see the appellant by the various witnesses in the
concerned Court. No robbed property has been recovered from
the appellant. Only sum of Rs.6,000/- is seized from the
appellant, to show that he was one of the robbers. No test
identification of the cash can be done. One firearm and
motorcycle have also been recovered from the appellant, but
there was no connection with the motorcycle with the alleged
92

offence. No witnesses have stated that the robbers came on that
vehicle. For keeping firearm he has already undergone the
sentence directed by the trial Court. There are fair chances that
his sentence may be reduced for which he remained in the
custody. If execution of sentence is not suspended, then his
appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be
released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.6715/14 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Jagdish Singh shall remain suspended and he
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 15/12/2014 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
93

Criminal Appeal No.3139/2013
14.11.2014
Shri Aseem Dixit, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.21831/2014, a application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and temporary
grant of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Section 377 of IPC and sentenced to seven years' of RI with fine
of Rs.5000/-.

This application has been moved on the ground that the
father of the appellant has expired on 9.11.2014 and the
appellant has to attend the various ceremonies relating to death
of his father. In view of this fact, temporary bail for 15 days can
be granted to the appellant.

Consequently, IA No.21831/14 is allowed. It is directed
that the execution of jail sentence of appellant namely Kailash
Sharma shall remain suspended and he be released on
temporary bail for 15 days on his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one
surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court. The appellant shall surrender immediately on 1.12.2014.

The trial Court is directed to send an information that the
appellant has surrendered before the trial Court on the given
date.

Case be listed for further orders on 10.12.2014.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
94

Ansari
95

Criminal Appeal No.2017/2014
16.10.2014
Shri U.S.Jaiswal, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.14702/2014, a application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Section 394 of IPC and sentenced to five years' of RI with fine
of Rs.200/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. He has already suffered the confinment
of more than four years. If the evidence advanced by the
prosecution is considered, then nothing could be robbed from
the complainant, and therefore no offence under Section 394 of
IPC is made out against the appellant. At the most offence under
Section 395 read with Section 511 of IPC may constitute. There
are fair chances that his sentence may be reduced for which he
remained in the custody. If execution of sentence is not
suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is
prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.14702/14 is allowed.

96

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Sheebu @ Jahid Musalman shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 18/12/2014 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
97

Criminal Appeal No.593/2014
09.10.2014
Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.19302/2014, a repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Sections 342, 506(II), 376 of IPC and sentenced to maximum
period of ten years of RI with total fine of Rs.5000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
prosecutrix was found to be above 16 years of age at the time of
incident. The doctor who examined the prosecutrix had found
that external injury caused to the prosecutrix was 3-4 days old,
whereas no internal injury was found to the prosecutrix. She
was a habitual to the intercourse. The place of incident was the
place in the dense locality and no reason has been shown by the
prosecutrix as to why she did not make any hue and cry. There
is possibility that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. There
are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of
sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous.
Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
98

of the case, IA No.19302/14 is allowed subject to depositing the
fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by
the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant
namely Pintu Verma shall remain suspended and he be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/11/2014 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
99

Criminal Appeal No.923/2012
19.09.2014
Ms Mamta Dubey, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.17670/2014, a repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted of offence punishable under
Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC and sentenced to maximum period
of five years' RI with total fine of Rs.1500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial. The deceased was the
wife of the appellant, who died after seven years of her
marriage, and therefore no presumption under Section 113-A of
the Evidence Act may apply in the case. The allegations made
against the appellant do not fall within the purview of Section
107 or 109 of IPC, and therefore prima facie no offence under
Section 306 of IPC is made out against the appellant. The
appellant remained in the custody for four years, and therefore
sentence of offence under Section 498-A of IPC has already
been executed. There are fair chances of success of this appeal
and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his
appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be
released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

100

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.17670/14 is allowed subject to depositing the
fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by
the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant
namely Kharag Singh shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19/11/2014 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
101

Criminal Appeal No.3263/2013
19.09.2014
Shri Manish Datt, Sr. Advocate with Shri Rahul Sharma,
Advocate for the appellant No.1.

Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.17753/2014, a repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant No.1.

The appellant No.1 is convicted of offence punishable
under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act and sentenced to three years'
RI with fine of Rs.25,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial
Court. It is alleged against the present appellant and the co-
accused persons that they had 2 kg Ganja. The present appellant
No.1 remained in the custody for more than one year and there
is possibility that his sentence may be reduced to the period for
which he remained in the custody. There are fair chances of
success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not
suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is
prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellant No.1 be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.17753/14 is allowed subject to depositing the
fine amount before the trial Court.

102

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by
the appellant No.1, then the execution of jail sentence of
appellant No.1 namely Raju @ Rajkumar shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 19/11/2014 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
103

Criminal Appeal No.1717/2014
26.08.2014
Shri L.N.Sakle, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.12341/2014, a repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 326/34 of IPC and sentenced to five
years' RI with fine of Rs.5000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial and he is ready to deposit
the fine amount before the trial Court. Actually the grave injury
was caused by the co-accused Komal by a sharp cutting
weapon. The witnesses have alleged that at the time when the
co-accused Komal was assaulting the victim, the present
appellant held the victim. However, if the FIR Ex.P-8 is
perused, then it is not mentioned by the complainant that the
appellant held the victim when the co-accused was assaulting by
a knife and improvement has been done by the witnesses to
implicate the appellant, because the co-accused had expired.
The appellant was not aware that the co-accused would assault
the victim in such a manner. No common intention of the
appellant can be presumed with the co-accused. There are fair
chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of
sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous.
Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

104

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.12341/14 is allowed subject to depositing the
fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by
the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant
namely Rajendra Ahirwar @ Kallu Ahirwar shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 10/12/2014 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
105

Criminal Appeal No.1752/2014
26.08.2014
Shri Umakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Shri P.N.Tiwari,
Advocate for the appellant.

Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.12494/2014, a repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and sentenced
to maximum period of five years' RI with total fine of
Rs.5000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the parents
of the deceased have accepted that the marriage of the deceased
took place 9-10 years back before the incident, and therefore no
presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is
applicable. According to the dying declaration Ex.P-5, the
deceased committed suicide because the appellant was abusing
her by blaming her character. Such allegation does not fall
within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of IPC and prima
facie no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against
the appellant. The appellant remained in the custody for 112
days during the trial and at present he is in custody for last two
months. If he is found guilty under Section 498-A of IPC, then
there is possibility of reduction of his sentence. There are fair
chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of
sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous.
Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

106

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.12494/14 is allowed subject to depositing the
fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by
the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant
namely Vinod Kol shall remain suspended and he be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 9/12/2014 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
107

Criminal Appeal No.58/2014
22.08.2014
Shri Sandesh Dixit, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.14200/2014, a repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 307, 450 of IPC and sentenced to
five years' RI with fine of Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial and at present he is in
custody since 3.1.2014. looking to the opinion given by
Dr.A.K.Jain (PW-2) in the cross examination, the injuries
caused to the victim were simple in nature, therefore at the most
offence under sections 324 and 452 of IPC would be
constituted. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and
and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal
may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution
of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released
on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.14200/14 is allowed subject to depositing the
fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by
the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant
108

namely Sher Singh @ Shera shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 11/11/2014
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
109

Criminal Appeal No.37/2014
22.08.2014
Shri Rahul Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.13764/2014, a repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 7/8 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act and Section 506 (II) of IPC and sentenced
to the maximum period of three years' RI with fine of Rs.500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is in custody for last one year. He was on bail during
the trial and the trial Court vide order dated 11.12.2013 has
suspended the execution of jail sentence of the appellant for a
limited period. However, he could not furnish the bail, and
therefore he remained in the custody. There are fair chances of
success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not
suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is
prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.13764/14 is allowed subject to depositing the
fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by
the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant
110

namely Dhuklal shall remain suspended and he be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/-
(Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 12/11/2014 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
111

Criminal Appeal No.1836/2014
19.08.2014
Shri Surendra Rajak, Advocate for the appellant.
Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.13096/2014, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 6 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act and sentenced with 10 years RI with fine
of Rs.500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
prosecutrix was shown to be above 17 years of aged at the time
of incident. The trial Court has accepted her version that she
went herself for Mumbai, and therefore the appellant was not
convicted for the offence under Section 363 or 366 of IPC. The
date of birth as shown by the father of the prosecutrix is under
dispute. He could not show that when it was recorded in the
school and what was the document shown by him in support.
No ossification test has been performed by the prosecution to
assess the actual age of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix has
clearly stated before the trial Court that she wants to reside with
the appellant and she has a child from the appellant. There are
fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of
sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous.
Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

112

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.13096/14 is allowed subject to depositing the
fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by
the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant
namely Mohd. Salman @ Sallu shall remain suspended and he
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 14/10/2014 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
113

Criminal Appeal No.1624/2013
19.08.2014
Smt. Indu Pandey, Advocate for the appellant.
Smt. Nirmala Nayak, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.13555/2014, a repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant whereas his earlier application was
dismissed being withdrawn.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 392/34 and 397 of IPC and sentenced
with maximum period of seven years of RI with total fine of
Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was
no named FIR against the appellant. It was alleged that he was
identified by the witnesses Vinod (PW-2) and Krishna Bai (PW-

1), however Krishna Bai did not identify the appellant in the
trial Court. Contrary to the identification parade memo she
identified the co-accused Vijay in the Court. The victim Vinod
(PW-2) has accepted in para 11 of his statement that the
appellant was shown to him at the police station and thereafter
test identification parade was arranged at the District Jail,
Hoshangabad. Under such circumstances, there is no
evidentiary value of the test identification proceeding. No
robbed property has been recovered from the appellant. There
are fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of
sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous.
Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

114

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.13555/14 is allowed subject to depositing the
fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by
the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant
namely Amit Thakur shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 18/11/2014 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
115

Criminal Appeal No.925/2014
06.05.2014
Shri Arun Vishwakarma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.8562/2014, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 376(1) and 506(2) of IPC and
sentenced with maximum period of ten years of RI with total
fine of Rs.6000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a youth of 26 years of age, who was on bail during
the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. The
prosecutrix has accepted that at the time of incident the
appellant was in a drunken condition and he was pushed by
sister-in-law of the prosecutrix, and therefore the appellant fell
on the earth. Under such circumstances, it was not possible for
the appellant to commit rape without consent of the prosecutrix.
Therefore, either the appellant is falsely implicated in the matter
or the prosecutrix was a consenting party. No alleged offence is
made out against the appellant. There are fair chances of success
of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended,
then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that
the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present
appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

116

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.8562/14 is allowed subject to depositing the
fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by
the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant
namely Mukesh @ Mukri shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/7/2014
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
117

Criminal Appeal No.695/2014
05.05.2014
Shri Imtiaz Husain, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA NO.8405/14, an application for amendment.
Application is allowed. The proposed amendment be
carried out within one week.

Also heard on IA No.8403/14, an application for
suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellants
No.1 and 2.

The appellants No.1 and 2 are convicted for commission
of offence punishable under Sections 498-A/34, 304-B/34 of
IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and sentenced
with maximum period of ten years' RI with total fine of Rs.
3,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse
the liberty granted to them. The deceased was the wife of the
appellant No.1 Santosh and sister-in-law of the appellant No.2
Sunil, who died due to burn injuries. After her death, the parents
and relatives have made omnibus allegations against the
appellants about the dowry demand. However, mother of the
deceased had admitted that there was exchange of marriage in
the family that sister of the appellant Santosh was married to the
brother of the deceased, and therefore if there was any demand
of dowry from the side of the appellants, then certainly sister of
the appellants would have tortured by the parents of the
deceased, whereas she is living peacefully. Looking to the entire
evidence of various witnesses, it appears that there was
118

allegation against the accused Laxmi, who tried to commit rape
upon the deceased, and therefore she committed suicide. Prima
facie no offence under Section 304-B of IPC is made out against
the appellants No.1 and 2. The remaining offences are not so
grave. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. Under
such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on
bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, the aforesaid application is hereby allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellants No.1 and 2 namely Santosh and Sunil shall remain
suspended and they be released on bail on their furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty
thousand) each with one surety bond in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 15/7/2014 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
119

Criminal Appeal No.229/2012
30.04.2014
Shri Prakash Upadhyay, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.5226/2014, a repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant No.1 Shiv Kumar Saket whereas his
earlier applications were dismissed being withdrawn.

The appellant No.1 is convicted for commission of
offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced
with ten years' of RI with fine of Rs.5000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was
alleged against the present appellant that he assaulted the victim
for once by a knife. There is no allegation against the present
appellant Shiv Kumar Saket that he assaulted for the second
time. At present he remained in the custody for more than 3 ½
years and there are fair chances that his sentence may be
reduced for which he remained in the custody. If execution of
sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous.
Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.5226/2 maximum 014 is allowed subject to
depositing the fine amount before the trial Court.

120

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by
the appellant No.1 then the execution of jail sentence of
appellant No.1 namely Shivkumar Saket shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 25/6/2014 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
121

Criminal Appeal No.2679/2012
30.04.2014
Shri RPS Thakur, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.3838/2014, a repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant whereas his earlier application was
dismissed being withdrawn.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 376 of IPC and sentenced with ten
years' of RI with fine of Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. The prosecutrix had lodged an FIR about
the rape against the appellant, however she expired before her
examination, and therefore there is no substance evidence
produced by the prosecution against the appellant. The
witnesses Pushpa (PW-4), Sunila (PW-5), Santosh (PW-6),
Channulal (PW-7) etc. have stated in omnibus manner on the
basis of hearsay evidence and their evidence is not admissible
because that was the hearsay evidence. Dr. Rajnish Jain (PW-9)
has admitted that at the time of medico legal examination of the
prosecutrix, the prosecutrix admitted before her that she never
met with the appellant in last one month, and therefore no
intercourse was done in last one month of the medico legal
examination of the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix was a major
girl, who did not lodge any FIR about the previous incident. She
was a drugs addict and therefore she was examined by the
122

doctor. If the appellant did intercourse with the prosecutrix one
month prior to her medical legal examination, then looking to
the conduct of the prosecutrix that she did not lodge any FIR,
she was a consenting party and in last one month according to
her nothing was done with her. Under such circumstances, no
offence under Section 376 of IPC is made out against the
appellant. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and
and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal
may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution
of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released
on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.3838/2014 is allowed subject to depositing
the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by
the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant
namely Vishwanath @ Vissu Mallah shall remain suspended
and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one
surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on
30/6/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office
from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
123

Ansari
124

Criminal Appeal No.845/2012
29.04.2014
Ms Kamlesh Tamrakar, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.7788/12, an application for suspension of
jail sentence and suspension of fine amount.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced for 5 years'
RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal
past alleged against him. He has already remained in the jail for
two years, whereas it is a case of chain snatching. There are fair
chances that his sentence may be reduced for which he
remained in the custody. If he is not released on bail, then his
appeal may turn infructuous. Under such circumstances, it is
prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, the aforesaid application is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Girru @ Girish Verma shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount subject to
depositing the fine amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court
125

for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 1/7/2014
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
126

Criminal Appeal No.1136/2011
25.04.2014
Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.6546/14 and IA NO.6544/14,
applications for suspension of jail sentence and suspension of
fine amount.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 20-B(II)(C) of NDPS Act and
sentenced for 10 years' RI with fine of Rs. 1.00,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that one quintal
Ganja was found in a vehicle driven by co-accused Ambrish
Chandra Mishra. At the time of seizure the applicant was not
found in the vehicle. After completion of seizure etc. the police
recorded the statement of co-accused Ambrish Chandra Mishra
that Ganja was booked by one Mamu Patel along with one
Chhedi Patel. On the basis of that information, the appellant was
called from the jail and arrested. It is nowhere established that
the appellant was Mamu Patel or Chhedi Patel. No such
document is recovered that he booked the taxi from the
particular company or he was travelling in the vehicle soon
before the siezure. Under such circumstances, there is no valid
evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. The main
accused Ambrish Chandra Mishra has already been enlarged on
bail vide order dated 24.2.2012 in Cr.A.No.765/2011 and the
case of the present appellant is inferior to him. The appellant is
in custody since 1.7.2008 and therefore if he is not released on
bail, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Under such
127

circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, the aforesaid application is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Rajendra Patel @ Ramjanam shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.70,000/- (Rupees seventy
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount and 50% of
the fine amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19/6/2014 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time. Consequently, the remaining fine amount shall remain
stayed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
128

Criminal Appeal No.305/2011
09.04.2014
Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.5823/2014, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 307/149 (two counts) and 148 of IPC
and sentenced with maximum period of five years of RI with
total fine of Rs.1200/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court.
According to Dr.Sampoornand Dubey (PW-13) the injuries
caused to the victim Sachin were simple in nature, whereas the
trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence under
Section 307/149 of IPC for the victim Sachin. There is
possibility that the conviction of the appellant for the victim
Sachin may be reduced to Section 324 of IPC. Similarly, victim
Basant sustained two injuries and out of them the injury No.2
was found simple in nature by Dr.Sampoornand Dubey (PW-

13). For injury No.1 the patient was referred to the Surgical
Specialist and Dr. Rajesh Pandey (PW-5) in his query report has
submitted that the injury No.1 of victim Basant was grave and
injury No.2 was fatal, whereas no bed head ticket is shown and
it was not established that the injury No.1 was grave under
Section 320 of IPC. Under such circumstances, there is
possibility that the conviction of the appellant for the victim
129

Basant may also be reduced to Section 324 of IPC. The
appellant remained in the custody since 25.10.2010. There are
fair chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of
sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous.
Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.5823/ 2014 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Sonu alias Dilip shall remain suspended and
he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 5/5/2014
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
130

Criminal Appeal No.2973/2013
04.04.2014
Shri A.K.Jain, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.6077/14, which is an application for
suspension of jail sentence whereas previous application of the
appellants was dismissed being withdrawn.

The appellants are convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 307 or 307/34 and 325 of IPC and
sentenced with maximum period of seven years' RI with fine of
Rs. 4,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants are reputed citizen of the locality. They were on bail
during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to
them. The charges of offence under Sections 307 and 325 of
IPC were framed for the victim Akhilesh, who appeared before
the Court on 4.3.2014 and applied for compromise and his
compromise application was accepted, and therefore the
appellants are acquitted from the charge of Section 325 of IPC.
In the light of the compromise, there is possibility that sentence
for the offence under Section 307 of IPC may be reduced to the
period for which they remained in the custody, whereas they
remained for six months. Under such circumstances, it is prayed
that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present
appellants be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

131

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, the aforesaid application is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellants namely Sanju and Munnilal shall remain suspended
and they be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond
in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) each
with one surety bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of
the trial Court for their appearance before the Registry of this
Court on 7/5/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by
the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
132

Criminal Appeal No.576/2014
21.03.2014
Shri Harshit Patel, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.3936/2014, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 363 of IPC and Section 4 of POSCO
Act and sentenced with maximum period of seven years of RI
with total fine of Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. He is ready to deposit the fine amount
before the trial Court. The prosecutrix is shown to be 16 ½ years
old in her medico legal examination. No ossification test was
done. The date of birth of the prosecutrix was proved by the
Teacher, who admitted the prosecutrix in class 9 to 10, and
therefore there is no basis shown by the prosecution by which
the date of birth of the prosecutrix was recorded. Looking to her
physical appearance and her consent, she appears to be a
consenting party and above 18 years of age. There are fair
chances of success of this appeal and and if execution of
sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous.
Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

133

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.3936/ 2014 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Sandeep Kachhi shall remain suspended and
he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 21/4/2014
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
134

Criminal Appeal No.3345/2013
21.02.2014
Shri B.P.Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.28760/2013, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 456, 476, 506 (Part-II) of IPC and
Section 4 of POSCO Act and sentenced with maximum period
of ten years of RI with total fine of Rs.12000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the doctor
(PW-14) has stated that by ossification test the age of the
prosecutrix was found to be above 18 years of age. The
prosecutrix (PW-1) has admitted in the cross examination that
for urination she was not required to go on the road, but she
went to the road for that purpose. It would be apparent that the
prosecutrix was a consenting party. No alleged offence is made
out against the appellant. There are fair chances of success of
this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended,
then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that
the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present
appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.28760/ 2013 is allowed.

135

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Komal Singh shall remain suspended and he
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 25/3/2014 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
136

Criminal Appeal No.2282/2009
27.01.2014
Shri Ratan Bharat Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.1307/2014, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC and sentenced
with maximum period of ten years of RI with total fine of
Rs.4000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality. He was on bail
during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.
The prosecutrix was shown to be above 17 years of age and in
the ossification test she was also found above 17 years of age.
According to the statements of witnesses, she was above 18
years of age. According to her own statement, she resided in a
separate hut at Mathura. It is alleged against the appellant that
he kidnapped the prosecutrix, however she was resided in a
separate hut, then there is no question of any kidnapping or
abduction. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and
and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal
may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution
of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released
on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

137

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.1307/ 2014 is allowed subject to depositing
the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by
the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant
namely Gya @ Gyaprasad shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/3/2014
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
138

Criminal Appeal No.630/2013
27.01.2014
Shri Rajesh Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.17003/2013, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 450 and 376(1) of IPC and sentenced
with maximum period of seven years of RI with total fine of
Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality. He was on bail
during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.
The prosecutrix is shown to be married woman of 26 years of
age. No external or internal injury was found on her person.
According to the prosecution story, the appellant broken the
door of the house of the prosecutrix and thereafter he entered
into the house. However, in the memo of spot memo the police
did not find any broken door at the spot. The prosecutrix could
make hue and cry at the time of incident, because there is no
allegation against the appellant that he had any weapon at the
time of incident. Under such circumstances, either the appellant
is falsely implicated in the matter or the prosecutrix was a
consenting party. There are fair chances of success of this
appeal and and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then
his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be
released on bail.

139

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.17003/ 2013 is allowed subject to depositing
the fine amount before the trial Court.

Thus, it is directed that if the fine amount is deposited by
the appellant, then the execution of jail sentence of appellant
namely Gutroo @ Susheel shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/3/2014
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
140

Criminal Appeal No.279/2013
16.01.2014
Shri A.D.Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.2905/2013, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced with
seven years' RI with fine of Rs.500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality. He was on bail
during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.
The FIR was lodged with a delay of 10 hours, whereas the
husband of the prosecutrix reached to his house in the night
itself. The various witnesses have admitted that the appellant
was a regular visitor to the house of the prosecutrix when her
husband was not present. It is apparent that there was allegation
on the appellant that he had knocked down the wall in the house
of the prosecutrix's husband, and therefore a false case of rape
has been lodged against the appellant. The medical evidence is
negative. It was not proved beyond doubt that in the vaginal
swab of the prosecutrix, semen particles of the appellant was
found. There are fair chances of success of this appeal and and
if execution of sentence is not suspended, then his appeal may
turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

141

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.2905/ 2013 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Shyamlal shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/3/2014
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
142

Criminal Appeal No.3040/2013
15.01.2014
Shri Dhananjay Asati, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.26005/2013, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced with one
year's RI
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the seizure
of mobile was not proved against the present appellant. Such
type of mobiles are available with so many persons, and
therefore by purchase of mobile, no offence under Section 411
of IPC is made out against the appellant. However, no
identification number of the mobile was given for its
identification. The company issues so many so many mobiles of
the same identification and in absence of the specific
identification mark, it could not be proved that the seized
mobile was the same, which was robbed. There are fair chances
of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not
suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is
prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

143

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.26005/ 2013 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Suresh Luniya shall remain suspended and he
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/3/2014
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
144

Criminal Appeal No.1741/2013
15.01.2014
Shri Ghanshyam Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.25813/2013, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 411 of IPC and sentenced with one
year's RI
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the seizure
of mobile was not proved against the present appellant. Such
type of mobiles are available with so many persons, and
therefore by purchase of mobile, no offence under Section 411
of IPC is made out against the appellant. However, no
identification number of the mobile was given for its
identification. The company issues so many so many mobiles of
the same identification and in absence of the specific
identification mark, it could not be proved that the seized
mobile was the same, which was robbed. There are fair chances
of success of this appeal and and if execution of sentence is not
suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is
prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

145

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.26005/ 2013 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Suresh Luniya shall remain suspended and he
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/3/2014
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
146

Ansari
147

Criminal Appeal No.211/2012
10.01.2014
Shri Satish Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellant No.3.
Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.25089/2013, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant No.3.

The appellant No.3 is convicted for commission of
offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC and
sentenced with maximum period of ten years' RI with fine
amount Rs.100/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.3 submits that the
appellant No.3 is a reputed citizen of the locality, who was on
bail during the trial. The parents of the deceased appeared on
7.10.2010 before the Executive Magistrate when
Panchayatnama-lash was prepared, but they did not allege
anything against the appellant No.3 at that time. After keeping
silence for three weeks, they made omnibus allegations of
dowry demand and harassment. Smt. Santosh Saket (PW-2)
mother of the deceased has admitted in para 8 and 9 in her
deposition that she and her husband demanded expenditure of
marriage of the deceased from the parents and a Panchayat was
called, thereafter the appellants refused to repay the expenditure
of the marriage. Therefore, an FIR was lodged. She has also
accepted that the appellants have a huge agricultural land with
them and in the family of the appellants nobody goes for job of
labourer. They are involved in the cultivation. Under such
circumstances, the allegations of dowry demand and harassment
148

appear to be not correct. There are fair chances of success of
this appeal and if execution of sentence is not suspended, then
his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant
No.3 be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.25089/ 2013 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant No.3 namely Satyanarayan Saket shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 24/3/2014 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
149

Criminal Appeal No.2758/2013
Criminal Appeal No.2792/2013
08.01.2014
Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for appellant Gopal @
Vikky @ Appa Burman and Shri Kaustubh Singh, Advocate for
the remaining appellants.

Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.23832/13 and IA No.24088/13,
applications for suspension of jail sentence and for grant of bail.

The appellant Gopal is convicted for the offence under
Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced with ten years RI with fine
of Rs.5000/-, whereas the remaining appellants are convicted
for commission of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g)
of IPC and sentenced in the same manner.

Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the
prosecutrix was a married woman, who was living with an old
person Chandrika Prasad Tiwari (PW-1), who was not the
husband of the prosecutrix. The version of the prosecutrix
appears to be unnatural. The place where the alleged offence
was done, was visible by so many persons, however the eye-
witnesses have turned hostile. No test identification parade has
been arranged against the accused Gopal and there is no named
FIR against him. It was expected from the prosecutrix that soon
after the incident, she would have informed the various
witnesses about the incident, but Chandrika Prasad Tiwari (PW-

1), Ashok Kumar (PW-8), Raja Sahu (PW-11), Jitendra (PW-12)
etc. did not confirm that the prosecutrix intimated them about
the incident. The FIR was lodged with delay of two days. In 48
hours after the incident, nothing could be found in the vaginal
150

swab of the prosecutrix, however the FSL report Ex.P-6 is
positive, which indicates that before examination of the
prosecutrix, she would have entered into a fresh intercourse
after the incident. No DNA has been obtained from the samples
so that it can be inferred that the DNA found in the vaginal
swab was of the appellants. Under such circumstances, there are
fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of
sentence is not suspended, then their appeal may turn
infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on
bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, the aforesaid applications are allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellants namely Gopal @ Vikky @ Appa Burman,
Chhanga @ Mohammed Salim and Ramesh Prasad Gupta
shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees
forty thousand) each with one surety bond in the like amount,
to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before
the Registry of this Court on 10/3/2014 and on subsequent dates
as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
151

Criminal Appeal No.2702/2013
07.01.2014
Shri Narayan Dubey, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.26853/2013, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and sentenced
with maximum period of five years' RI with total fine amount
Rs.200/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal
past alleged against him. The deceased was the wife of the
appellant, who died after few years of her marriage. Initially a
charge under Section 304-B of IPC was appended against the
appellant but he was acquitted from that charge. No charge
under Section 306 of IPC was framed by the trial Court,
however the appellant is convicted for that offence. It was
alleged against the appellant that he was in habit to assault his
wife after consuming the liquor. However, the alleged overt-acts
of the appellant do not fall within the purview of Section 107 or
109 of IPC, and therefore prima facie no offence under Section
306 of IPC is made out against the appellant. The remaining
offence is not so grave. There are fair chances of success of this
appeal. The appellant remained in the custody for 18 months.
Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

152

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.26853/ 2013 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Anil @ Pakku shall remain suspended and he
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10/3/2014
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari
153

Criminal Appeal No.1566/2013
07.01.2014
Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Record of the court below is available.
Heard on IA No.21284/2013, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced with six
years' RI with fine amount Rs.1,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a youth of 20 years of age, who has no criminal past
alleged against him. The deceased was the wife of the appellant,
who died within five months of her marriage. It is alleged in the
dying declaration that the applicant alleged about her chastity
that she was involved with her brother-in-law and thereafter she
was committed suicide. The overt-acts as alleged against the
appellant do not fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of
IPC, hence no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out
against him. There are fair chances of success of this appeal.
The appellant has already deposited the fine amount before the
trial Court. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be
released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

154

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.21284/ 2013 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Rajesh shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety bond in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10/3/2014 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

List the case for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
155

Criminal Appeal No.1655/2013
06.01.2014
Shri Manoj Kushwaha, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.15560/13 an application for suspension
of jail sentence and for grant of bail.

The appellants are convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC and sentenced with
ten years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- each.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants are reputed citizen of the locality. They were on bail
during the trial. The prosecutrix was shown to be 17 years old
girl, whereas the incident took place on the date prior to the
amendment in IPC. The FIR was lodged with a delay of 3-4
days and the names of present appellants were not mentioned in
the FIR. The prosecutrix has admitted that the appellants were
shown by the police in the police station prior to arrangement of
test identification parade. Under such circumstances, there are
fair chances of success of this appeal and if execution of
sentence is not suspended, then their appeal may turn
infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on
bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, the aforesaid application is allowed.

156

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellants namely Ashok Kushwaha and Jainidhan @ Bholu
Kushwaha shall remain suspended and they be released on bail
on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/-
(Rupees forty thousand) each with one surety bond in the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 17/2/2014 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
157

Criminal Appeal No.2366/2013
18.12.2013
Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.21160/13 an application for suspension
of jail sentence and for grant of bail.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 376, 363, 366, 344 of IPC and
sentenced with maximum period of ten years' RI with total fine
of Rs.4,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court.
The prosecutrix was found to be above 18 years of age. In her
cross -examination, she has accepted that she did not intimate
her parents before leaving the house, though she could intimate
them. Under such circumstances, prima facie the prosecutrix
was a consenting party. No alleged offence is made out against
the appellant. There are fair chances of success of this appeal
and the appellant cannto be kept in the jail for an unlimited
period. Under such circumstances, if execution of sentence is
not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore,
it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, the aforesaid application is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Suber alias Subel shall remain suspended and
158

he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one
surety bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial
Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on
21/2/2014 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office
from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
159

Criminal Appeal No.2580/2013
18.12.2013
Shri Shashank Upadhyaya, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.25330/13 an application for suspension
of jail sentence and for grant of bail.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 326 and 324 of IPC and sentenced
with maximum period of five years' RI with total fine of
Rs.200/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a youth of 26 years of age, who has no criminal past
alleged against him. He was released on bail during the trial,
however he remained in the custody for approximately 190 days
till today. After considering the medical evidence, it appears that
the victim did not sustain any grave injury, and therefore prima
facie no offence under Section 326 of IPC is made out against
the appellant. Looking to the age of the appellant and his first
offence, his sentence for the offence under Section 324 of IPC
may be reduced to the period for which he remained in the
custody. Under such circumstances, if execution of sentence is
not suspended, then his appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore,
it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, the aforesaid application is allowed.

160

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Ajju @ Ajay shall remain suspended and he
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety
bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/2/2014
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
161

Criminal Appeal No.1814/2010
22.11.2013
Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the appellant No.2.
Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.1837013, an application for suspension
of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.2.

The appellant No.2 is convicted for commission of
offence punishable under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC and
sentenced for ten years' RI and three years' RI with fine of
Rs.500/-..

Learned counsel for the appellant No.2 submits that the
appellant remained in the custody for more than 3 ½ years and
the appeal could not be decided, therefore in the light of the
order of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of "Salim Javed
Vs. State of Rajasthan", [(2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 354], the
appellant may be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

In the light of the order of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the
case of Salim Javed (supra), it is a fit case in which the
execution of jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended
and he may be released on bail. Consequently, IA No.18370/13
is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant No.2 namely Smt. Kaushalya Bai shall remain
suspended and she be released on bail on her furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
162

Registry of this Court on 19/12/2013 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
163

Criminal Appeal No.1641/2010
22.11.2013
Shri Dilip Shrivastava, Advocate for the appellant No.3.
Shri R.N.Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.18645/13, an application for suspension
of jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant No.3.

The appellant No.3 is convicted for commission of
offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC and
sentenced for seven years' RI.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.3 submits that the
appellant remained in the custody for more than four years and
the appeal could not be decided, therefore in the light of the
order of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of "Salim Javed
Vs. State of Rajasthan", [(2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 354], the
appellant may be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

In the light of the order of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the
case of Salim Javed (supra), it is a fit case in which the
execution of jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended
and he may be released on bail. Consequently, IA No.18645/13
is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant No.3 namely Miththulal @ Neelkanth shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 19/12/2013 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.

164

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
165

Criminal Appeal No.347/2012
16.08.2013
Shri M.S.Jain, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant prays for time to
convert IA No.10384/13 into an application for suspension of
jail sentence.

Prayer is allowed.

Heard on converted application which a repeat
application for suspension of jail sentence whereas his previous
application was dismissed being withdrawn.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 8/20-B(2) sub Clause (B) of NDPS
Act and sentenced for six years' RI with fine of Rs. 30,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is
alleged against the appellant that he had 4 kg Ganja with him
whereas he remained in the custody for more than two years.
Under such circumstances, there is possibility that his sentence
may be reduced to the period which he has already undergone in
the custody and if he is not released on bail, then his appeal may
turn infructuous. Learned counsel for the appellant further
submits that the appellant shall deposit 50% of the fine amount
before the trial Court. Under such circumstances, it is prayed
that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present
appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, the aforesaid application is allowed.

166

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Kailash Mehra shall remain suspended and
he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with one surety
bond in the like amount and 50% of the fine amount, to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 30/9/2013 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
167

Criminal Appeal No.2431/2012
26.07.2013
Shri Naresh Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.11322/2011, a repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant whereas his previous application was
dismissed on merits.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 147, 452, 323/149 (three counts) and
sentenced with maximum period of two years with fine of
Rs.2500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a youth of 28 years of age, though there is a bail
jump found before the trial Court. However, the appellant is
sentenced for the offence under Section 323 of IPC with six
months' RI only and sentence for all the counts is required to
run concurrently. Under such circumstances, the sentence under
Sections 452 and 149 of IPC may be reduced to the period of
six months. If the execution of jail sentence of the appellant is
not suspended, then the present appeal may turn infructuous.
Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.11322/ 2013 is allowed.

168

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Ravindra shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 2/9/2013 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
169

Criminal Appeal No.1816/2012
28.06.2013
Shri Y.K.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.10191/2013, a repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 324 (two counts) and 323/34 (two
counts) of IPC and sentenced for maximum period of six
months RI with total fine of Rs.1500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant could not appear before the trial Court on the given
date and he could not produce the order of suspension from this
Court, and therefore it was directed that he would not be
enlarged on bail. However, he remained in the custody for two
months. Looking to the period of sentence, the present appeal
cannot be decided within that period and the appeal may turn
infructuous. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and appellant be
released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.10191/ 2013 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Tularam shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
170

Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 21/8/2013 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
171

Criminal Appeal No.2320/2009
11.01.2013
Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.14373/2012, a repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 376, 323 of IPC and sentenced for
seven years' RI with fine amount Rs.500/- and three months' RI.

Initially the appellant was enlarged vide order dated
7.4.2010, but he jumped the bail, and therefore his second
application was dismissed on 27.6.2012.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that initially
the FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix for the offence
punishable under Section 354 of IPC and thereafter she added
the crime of Section 376 of IPC against the appellant. The
appellant remained in the custody for more than 1 ½ years, and
therefore if he is convicted for the offence under Section 354 of
IPC, then he remained in the custody for more than appropriate
sentence, which could be passed. Due to illness, he could not
appear before the Court, therefore he prays for one more
opportunity. The appellant is ready to deposit a sum of
Rs.5,000/- from his previous bond amount to show his bonafide
intention. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be
released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

172

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.14373/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Mohd. Shamim shall remain suspended and
he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
subject to deposit a sum of Rs.5,000/- of his previous bond
amount before the trial Court, for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 18/2/2013 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
173

Criminal Appeal No.1484/2012
21.11.2012
Shri Satyam Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri R.P.Tiwari, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.14749/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted and sentenced as under:-

     Section u/s              Sentence                  Fine
420 of IPC RI for 3 years 50,000/-
467/120-B RI for 7 years 50,000/-
468/120-B RI for 3 years 50,000/-

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality. A compromise took
place between the complainant and the appellant, and therefore
offence under Section 420 of IPC is compounded. He has
deposited the remaining fine amount of Rs.one lakh before the
trial Court. Sufficient time will be required for disposal of the
appeal. The appellant shall follow the conditions imposed upon
him. There are fair chances of success of this appeal after
compromise. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be
released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.14749/ 2012 is allowed.

174

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Surjeet Singh Bagga shall remain suspended
and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20/12/2012
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
175

Criminal Appeal No.312/2012
19.11.2012
Shri Anand Nayak, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.6522/2012, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC and sentenced for ten
years' RI with fine amount Rs.1,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a youth of 18 years of age, who has no criminal past
alleged against him. He was on bail during the trial and he did
not misuse the liberty granted to him. He has deposited the fine
amount before the triLearned counsel for the appellants seeks
permission to withdraw the application on behalf of appellant
No.1 Daulat Vishwakarma.

Prayer is allowed.

Application (IA No.13960/12) is dismissed being withdrawn for
the appellant No.1.al Court. All the witnesses including the
prosecutrix did not support the prosecution evidence. It is true
that some injuries were found in the private parts of the
prosecutrix, but it is nowhere established that any intercourse
was done by the appellant to the prosecutrix, and therefore no
offence under Section 376(2)(f) of IPC is made out against the
appellant. There are fair chances of success of this appeal.
Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

176

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.6522/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Indrapal shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 18/12/2012
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
177

Criminal Appeal No.1888/2012
19.11.2012
Shri A.D.Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.18448/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC and sentenced for five
years' RI with fine amount Rs.1,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. He is ready to deposit the fine amount
before the trial Court. Initially it was stated by the complainant
in the FIR that the appellant assaulted him by an axe and
remaining accused persons were present at that time. But in his
statement before the trial Court, he has stated that it was the
accused Kariyam, who assaulted him by a farsa. The victim
sustained only one injury. At appears that the appearance of the
appellant is shown unnecessarily to implicate him falsely. No
overt-act of the appellant is proved by the complainant that he
participated in the crime. There are fair chances of success of
this appeal. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be
released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

178

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.18448/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine
amount before the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence
of appellant namely Maan Singh shall remain suspended and
he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 18/12/2012
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
179

Criminal Appeal No.1906/2012
19.11.2012
Shri A.D.Mishra, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.18677/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellants.

Learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to
withdraw the application on behalf of appellant No.2 Kariyam
Singh.

Prayer is allowed.

Application (IA No.18677/12) is dismissed being
withdrawn for the appellant No.2.

The appellant No.1 Bal Singh is convicted for
commission of offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC
and sentenced for five years' RI with fine amount Rs.1,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.1 submits that the
appellant No.1 was on bail during the trial and he did not
misuse the liberty granted to him. He is ready to deposit the fine
amount before the trial Court. Initially it was stated by the
complainant in the FIR that the appellant No.1 assaulted him by
an axe and remaining accused persons were present at that time.
But in his statement before the trial Court, he has stated that it
was the accused Kariyam, who assaulted him by a farsa. The
victim sustained only one injury. At appears that the appearance
of the appellant No.1 is shown unnecessarily to implicate him
falsely. No overt-act of the appellant No.1 is proved by the
complainant that he participated in the crime. There are fair
chances of success of this appeal. Under such circumstances, it
180

is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.18677/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant No.1 deposits the
fine amount before the trial Court, then the execution of jail
sentence of appellant No.1 namely Bal Singh shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 18/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
181

Criminal Appeal No.1677/2012
07.11.2012
Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.18636/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and Section 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced for seven years' RI
with fine amount Rs.13,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. He is ready to deposit the fine amount
before the trial Court. Actually the deceased was the wife of the
appellant who expired after eight years of her marriage, and
therefore no presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence
Act is available to the prosecution. The overt-acts as alleged
against the appellant do not fall within the purview of Section
107 of IPC, hence no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made
out against him. The remaining offences are not so grave. There
are fair chances of success of this appeal. Under such
circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.18636/ 2012 is allowed.

182

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine
amount before the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence
of appellant namely Gulab Patle shall remain suspended and he
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19/12/2012 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
183

Criminal Appeal No.2171/2012
05.11.2012
Shri M.K.Tripathi, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.21352/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellants.

The appellants are convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC and sentenced
for maximum period of three years' RI with total fine amount
Rs.1500/- each.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants are reputed citizen of the locality, who have no
criminal past alleged against them. Both of them are young
youths of 22-20 years respectively. They are in custody for last
18 months, whereas maximum sentence of three years is
granted. There is possibility that the sentence may be reduced to
the period which they have already undergone in the custody.
They are not previous convict. Under such circumstances, if the
execution of jail sentence is not suspended, then the present
appeal may turn infructuous. Therefore, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants
be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.21352/ 2012 is allowed.

184

Thus, it is directed that if the appellants deposit the fine
amount in the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of
appellants namely Guddu @ Rakesh and Rama @
Ramshanker shall remain suspended and they be released on
bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) each with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
their appearance before the Registry of this Court on
14/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the
office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
185

Criminal Appeal No.1442/2012
05.11.2012
Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.14348/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 307/34 and 324/34 of IPC and
sentenced for maximum period of five years' RI with total fine
amount Rs.2,000/-.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality. He is Up Sarpanch
of the Gram Panchayat. He is falsely implicated in the matter.
He has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court. The
identity of the appellant could not be established either by the
complainant or the eye-witnesses. His name is unnecessarily
implicated due to political enmity. It is nowhere alleged that the
appellant was the person, who assaulted on the chest of the
victim, and therefore no offence under Section 307 of IPC is
made out against the appellant either directly or with the help of
Section 34 of IPC. The remaining offences are not so grave. The
appellant remained in the custody for more than seven months.
Under such circumstances, there are fair chances of success of
this appeal. It is also submitted that the wife of the appellant is
suffering from serious illness and except the appellant there is
nobody to look after his wife. Therefore, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be
released on bail.

186

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.14348/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Surendra shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20/12/2012
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
187

Criminal Appeal No.1474/2012
05.11.2012
Shri Rajesh Sen, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.18067/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 307 and 342 of IPC and sentenced
for maximum period of five years' RI with total fine amount
Rs.2,500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality. He was on bail
during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.
He is ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court.
Actually the victim Vikas Tiwari neither sustained any grievous
nor fatal injury, therefore no offence under Section 307 or 326
of IPC will be made out. At the most offence under Section 324
of IPC may constitute. Whereas the appellant remained in the
custody for 16 months. Under such circumstances, there are fair
chances of success of this appeal. Therefore, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be
released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.18067/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine
amount in the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of
188

appellant namely Rajendra Prasad Dwivedi shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 20/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
189

Criminal Appeal No.1945/2012
05.11.2012
Shri Manish Datt, Sr. Advocate with Shri P. Dubey,
Advocate for the appellants.

Shri G.S.Thakur, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.21269/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellants.

The appellants are convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 148, 307/149, 323/149 and sentenced
for maximum period of seven years' RI with total fine amount
Rs.200/- each.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse
the liberty granted to them. They are ready to deposit the fine
amount before the trial Court. Actually one injury sustained to
the victim Anup Singh which may be said to be grievous or
fatal. In all four injuries were caused to the victim Anup Singh,
whereas he has implicated 6-7 persons in the case. He could not
say that the appellants were the persons who assaulted him by
any weapon. On the contrary, he has accepted that the appellant
Jhalle had a stick at the time of the incident, whereas no injury
of stick was found to him. He has accepted that the head injury
caused to him was caused by Chhote and Vikram, and therefore
it is nowhere alleged against the appellants that they caused
head injury. Under such circumstances, the appellants could not
be convicted for the offence under Section 307 read with
Section 149 or 34 of IPC. There are fair chances of success of
this appeal. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the
190

execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants
be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.21269/2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellants deposit the fine
amount in the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of
appellants namely Jainandan Singh and Jhalle Singh @
Shivnandan Singh shall remain suspended and they be released
on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) each with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
their appearance before the Registry of this Court on
20/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the
office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
191

Criminal Appeal No.2107/2012
31.10.2012
Shri P.P.Budholiya, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.20707/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellans.

The appellants are convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 294, 323/34 (2 counts), 325/34 of
IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 and sentenced for maximum period of four years' RI
with total fine amount Rs.7,300/- each.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse
the liberty granted to them. They are ready to deposit the fine
amount before the trial Court. Except of sentence directed for
commission of offence under Section 325 of IPC, remaining
sentence is not so grave. Looking to the injuries caused to the
victim, there are fair chances of reduction of the sentence for
that offence. The appellant remained in the custody for one
month. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants
be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.20707/2012 is allowed.

192

Thus, it is directed that if the appellants deposit the fine
amount in the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of
appellants namely Golu @ Omprakash, Kanhiya Pardhi and
Satyaprakash @ Banti shall remain suspended and they be
released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) each with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
their appearance before the Registry of this Court on
13/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the
office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
193

Criminal Appeal No.1711/2012
31.10.2012
Shri R.B.Gautam, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.17088/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellants are convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 304(II) of IPC and sentenced for
seven years' RI with fine amount Rs.1,000/- each.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants are reputed citizen of the locality. They were on bail
during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to
them. It is alleged that the appellants assaulted the victim Sukali
on 21.7.2006 by sticks. However, no FIR was lodged by the
deceased or his parents. The matter was initiated when the
deceased died on 25.7.2006. There is no MLC report relating to
the injuries caused to the victim. In the postmortem report the
doctor could not opine the duration of the injuries in separate
manner. After the death of the deceased, the appellants were
falsely implicated in the matter by the parents and relatives of
the deceased. No acceptable reason has been shown by the
father of the deceased about non-filing of the FIR. There are fair
chances of success of this appeal. Under such circumstances, it
is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellants be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

194

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.17088/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellants namely Rajesh Yadav and Dinesh Prasad Yadav
shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees
thirty five thousand) each with one surety bond in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 14/12/2012 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
195

Criminal Appeal No.1712/2012
31.10.2012
Shri R.B.Gautam, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.17090/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 394 of IPC and sentenced for five
years' RI with fine amount Rs.1,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a youth of 20 years of age, who has no criminal past
alleged against him. He was on bail during the trial and he did
not misuse the liberty granted to him. He has deposited the fine
amount before the trial Court. Actually there is named FIR in
which the name of the appellant was not mentioned. It was
mentioned that one Golu Thakur was present with the main
accused Pappu. It is nowhere established in the FIR that "Golu
Thakur" was the name of the appellant. Before the trial Court
the complainant turned hostile and when he was declared
hostile, in the cross examination he accepted the contents of the
FIR, but again in the cross examination done by the defence
counsel he has accepted that the appellant has not done any
offence with him. Under such circumstances, no case is made
out. There are fair chances of success of this appeal. Under such
circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

196

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.17090/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Deepak Singh shall remain suspended and he
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 7/12/2012
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
197

Criminal Appeal No.661/2012
16.10.2012
Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.5336/2012, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 30 and sentenced for five years' RI
with fine amount Rs.2,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. He has deposited the fine amount before
the trial Court. There was no relation of the appellant with the
deceased so that presumption under Section 113-A of the
Evidence Act may apply. Looking to the entire dying
declaration given by the deceased, there is no specific allegation
against the appellant so that his overt-act may fall within the
ingredients of Section 107 of IPC. No offence under Section
306 of IPC is made out against the appellant. He is in jail
without any sufficient cause. There are fair chances of success
of this appeal. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be
released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.5336/ 2012 is allowed.

198

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Laxman Singh shall remain suspended and he
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 4/12/2012 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
199

Criminal Appeal No.1722/2012
16.10.2012
Shri B.J.Chourasiya, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.17182/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 326 and 294 of IPC and sentenced
for maximum period of ten years' RI with fine amount
Rs.5,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. He has deposited the fine amount before
the trial Court. Actually the eye-witnesses have stated that the
appellant assaulted the victim with a stick, and therefore if any
offence is constituted against the appellant, then it would be of
offence under Section 325 of IPC, which is compoundable. The
appellant remained in the custody for more than one year and
there are fair chances of reduction of the sentence granted to the
appellant, hence appeal may be accepted in future. Therefore, it
is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.17182/ 2012 is allowed.

200

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Madhav Yadav shall remain suspended and
he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with one
surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on
5/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office
from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
201

Criminal Appeal No.1739/2012
16.10.2012
Shri Priyank Choubey, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.17456/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellants.

Appellants are convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 307 and 323 of IPC and inflicted
maximum sentence of five years' RI with total fine amount
Rs.1250/-.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants were on bail during the trial and they did not misuse
the liberty granted to them. They have deposited the fine
amount before the trial Court. Actually the victim Babulal
sustained a fracture in his meta carpal bone. The fingers are not
the vital part of the body. There was no fracture on the head of
the victim Babulal. Under such circumstances, no offence under
Section 307 of IPC is made out. At the most offence under
Section 326 or 324 of IPC may constitute. It was a case of free
fight, whereas the trial Court has not considered the report
lodged by the appellants. The right of private defence was
accrued to the appellant. There are fair chances of success of
this appeal. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants
be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

202

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.17456/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellants namely Kanchhedi, Ramratan and Arvind shall
remain suspended and they be released on bail on their
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
twenty five thousand) each with a surety bond in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 5/12/2012 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
203

Criminal Appeal No.1986/2012
12.10.2012
Shri G.S.Thakur, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.21137/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 376 and 450 of IPC and sentenced
for maximum period of ten years' RI with total fine amount
Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. The prosecutrix was above 18 years of
age. No external or internal injury was found on her person. The
FIR has been lodged with a delay of two days. Under such
circumstances, either the prosecutrix was a consenting party or
the appellant is falsely implicated in the matter. Under such
circumstances, there are fair chances of success of this appeal.
Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.21137/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine
amount in the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Bhagraj Yadav shall remain suspended and
204

he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with one
surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on
5/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office
from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
205

Criminal Appeal No.2009/2012
10.10.2012
Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.19652/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 354-A of IPC and sentenced for five
years' RI with fine amount Rs.1500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. The prosecutrix has alleged that the
appellant undressed her. However, she has accepted in para 5 of
her statement that the incident of undressed her took place in
her bathroom situated at Village Biliya and therefore it was not
the public place. No offence under Section 354-A of IPC is
made out. The overt-act of the appellant may fall within the
purview of Section 354 of IPC, which is not so grave. Under
such circumstances, there are fair chances of success of this
appeal and the sentence may be reduced possibly. Therefore, it
is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.19652/ 2012 is allowed.

206

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Sinkoo @ Akash shall remain suspended and
he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with a
surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on
4/12/2012 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office
from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
207

Criminal Appeal No.1758/2012
03.10.2012
Shri S.K.Pathak, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.17433/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 8-C/20(B)(II)(b) of NDPS Act and
sentenced for four years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of
Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. He has deposited the fine amount before
the trial Court. He remained in the custody for approximately
one year, and therefore looking to quantity of Ganja, it is
possible that jail sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the
period which he has already undergone in the custody.
Therefore, there are fair chances of success of this appeal.
Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of
jail sentence be suspended and appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.17433/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Rajesh Gupta @ Tarzen shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
208

personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 23/11/2012 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time till final
adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
209

Criminal Appeal No.1563/2012
28.09.2012
Shri S.Tiwari, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.15696/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellants.

Appellants are convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and inflicted
maximum sentence of five years' RI with total fine amount
Rs.15000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
deceased died due to burn injuries caused in an arson in their
house. A trial was directed for the offence punishable under
Sections 304-B, 302 and 498-A of IPC. The trial Court has
acquitted the appellants for the offence under Section 304-B and
302 of IPC. No charge under Section 306 of IPC was framed
against the appellants. However, they were convicted for that
offence without any basis. It is nowhere proved that the death of
the deceased was suicidal. The offence under Section 498-A of
IPC is not so grave. The appellant Ramkrishna remained in the
custody for two years, whereas appellant Laxmi Bai remained in
the custody for approximately two years. There are fair chances
of success of this appeal. The sentence for the offence under
Section 498-A of IPC shall not be more than the period which
the appellants have already undergone in the custody. Under
such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on
bail.

210

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.15696/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellants deposit the fine
amount in the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of
appellants namely Ramkrishna and Smt. Laxmi Bai shall
remain suspended and they be released on bail on their
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
twenty five thousand) each with a surety bond in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 26/11/2012 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
211

Criminal Appeal No.1838/2012
28.09.2012
Shri G.P.Tripathi, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.18005/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The appellant was enlarged on bail by the trial Court, but
thereafter he is absconding. Neither he is appearing before the
trial Court nor he has appeared before this Court. Under such
circumstances, it is not a good case in which the appellant may
be enlarged on bail.

Consequently, IA No.18005/12 is hereby dismissed.
The trial Court is directed to execute the jail sentence of
the appellant, and as and when the appellant is arrested, then
information in this regard be given to this Court.

Case be listed for further orders on 29.10.2012.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
212

Criminal Appeal No.1441/2012
01.10.2012
Shri Paritosh Trivedi, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.14337/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

The trial Court had suspended the jail sentence of the
appellant for a limited period, but thereafter neither the
appellant appeared before the trial Court nor before this Court.
Under such circumstances, it appears that he has no respect to
the lawful authority. Therefore, if he is enlarged on bail, then he
may be escape.

Consequently, IA No.14337/12 is hereby dismissed.
The trial Court is directed to execute the jail sentence of
the appellant, and as and when the appellant is arrested, then
information in this regard be given to this Court.

Case be listed for further orders on 17.10.2012.
A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for
information.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
213

Criminal Appeal No.1977/2012
28.09.2012
Shri Atul Upadhyaya, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Punit Shroti, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.19335/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 411/34 and 414/34 of IPC and
sentenced for maximum period of two years' rigorous
imprisonment with total fine of Rs.10000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court.
He was on bail upto 13.9.2012 by the trial Court. However, he
could not appear on that date given by the trial Court for his
appearance. However, he assures that he will be regular in
appearing before the office of this Court in future. Looking to
the period of sentence, the present appeal cannot be decided
within that period and the appeal may turn infructuous. Under
these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.19335/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Pappu @ Vinod Kewat shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty
214

thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 22/11/2012 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
215

Criminal Appeal No.1538/2012
28.09.2012
Shri Imtiaz Husain, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.15303/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced for five
years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. Actually the incident took place in a spur
of moment. The culprit was unknown to the complainant. The
appellant was shown to the complainant before the police and
thereafter the test identification parade was arranged. Under
such circumstances, the identification of the appellant is
doubtful. It is not established that the appellant was the person
who assaulted the victim. Secondly, the victim did not sustain
any fatal injury. No vital organ was found cut. Under such
circumstances, where the victim was not known to the
appellant, there was no intention of the appellant to kill him. No
offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out. At the most
offence under Section 324 of IPC may constitute. However, the
appellant remained in custody for more than 20 months. There
are fair chances of success of this appeal. Under these
circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

216

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.15303/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Shahid Khan shall remain suspended and he
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with one surety bond
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 20/11/2012 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
217

Criminal Appeal No.1832/2012
17.09.2012
Shri A.D.Mishra, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has surrendered before the trial Court and copy of the
order sheet dated 15.9.2012 passed by the trial Court is
submitted for perusal.

Heard on IA No.179732012, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 135 of the Electricity Act and Section
304-A of IPC and sentenced for maximum period of two years.
Initially the sentence was suspended by the trial Court upto
6.9.2012, but appellant remained absconding after 6.9.2012
though no suspension was granted by this Court.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant shall be regular in appearing before the office. He was
on bail during the trial and looking to the sentence imposed
upon the appellant, the present appeal cannot be decided within
that period. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and appellant be
released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.17973/ 2012 is allowed.

218

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Suresh shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with one surety bond in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before this Court on 29/10/2012 and on subsequent
dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
219

Criminal Appeal No.1326/2009
14.09.2012
Shri K.L.Pandey, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.18081/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant No.1 Deepak @ Bhura.

Appellant No.1 is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 323/34 of IPC and sentenced for one
year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant No.1 was on bail, but he did not appear before the
office of the Court on 19.1.2012 and on subsequent dates given,
therefore warrant of arrest was issued and ultimately he was
arrested.

After considering the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties, it appears that there is no reason shown
as to why the appellant No.1 did not appear before the office on
19.1.2012. However, looking to the period of sentence, one
more opportunity may be given to the appellant No.1 to remain
on bail. Consequently, IA No.18081/12 is hereby allowed. It is
directed that if appellant No.1 namely Deepak @ Bhura
furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
twenty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the trial Court that he shall appear before
the Registry of this Court on 7/11/2012 and on subsequent dates
as may be fixed by the office from time to time, then he shall be
released on bail and execution of his jail sentence shall remain
suspended.

220

A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for
information.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
221

Criminal Appeal No.1004/2012
14.09.2012
Shri R.B.Gautam, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.9643/2012, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 8-C/20(B)(II)(b) of NDPS Act and
sentenced for four years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of
Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. He has deposited the fine amount before
the trial Court. It is alleged that 1.4 kg Ganja was found with the
appellant i.e. only 400 gram above than the small quantity,
whereas the appellant remained in the custody for ten months.
Under such circumstances, there is possibility that his sentence
may be reduced to the period which he has already undergone in
the custody. Therefore, there are fair chances of success of this
appeal. If execution of jail sentence is not suspended, then
present appeal may turn infructuous. Under these
circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.9643/ 2012 is allowed.

222

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Chhotelal Choudhary shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 9/11/2012 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time till final
adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
223

Criminal Appeal No.1390/2012
14.09.2012
Shri Narayan Dubey, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.17259/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

Appellants No.1 and 5 are convicted for commission of
offence punishable under Sections 148, 307/149 of IPC and
inflicted maximum sentence of five years' RI with total fine
amount Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants No.1 and 5 were on bail during the trial and they did
not misuse the liberty granted to them. They have deposited the
fine amount before the trial Court. The name of appellant No.5
was not told by the complainant Hardayal (PW-4) and his wife
Leela Bai (PW-5) that he assaulted to the complainant on any
any vital part of the body. Similarly, the complainant Hardayal
(PW-4) has admitted in his cross examination that he could not
see that amongst the accused persons who gave the second
assault on his head, whereas first assault was given by co-
accused Addu @ Navab Singh. Under such circumstances, it
cannot be said that the appellants No.1 and 5 were the members
of the unlawful assembly and therefore they could not be
convicted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC either
directly or with the help of Section 149 of IPC. There are fair
chances of success of this appeal. Co-accused Lekhram was
released on bail in Criminal Appeal No.1422/12 vide order
dated 29.8.2012. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that
224

the execution of jail sentence be suspended and appellants No.1
and 5 be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.17259/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellants No.1 and 5 namely Shrilal Keer and Mohan Keer
shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on their
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees
thirty five thousand) each with a surety bond in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance
before the Registry of this Court on 7/11/2012 and on
subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
225

Criminal Appeal No.1822/2012
10.09.2012
Shri P.P.Budholiya, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted the copy
of order sheet dated 6.9.2012 passed by the trial Court by which
it is clear that the appellant is in custody.

Heard on IA No.17874/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 354 of IPC and sentenced for one
year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. He is ready to deposit the fine amount
before the trial Court. Looking to the period of jail sentence, if
execution of jail sentence is not suspended, then present appeal
may turn infructuous. Under these circumstances, it is prayed
that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and appellant be
released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.17874/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine
amount in the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Guddu @ Umesh Patel shall remain
226

suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen
thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 17/10/2012 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
227

Criminal Appeal No.1213/2012
03.09.2012
Shri Sharad Verma, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.11967/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 392 of IPC and sentenced for two
years' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. He is ready to deposit the fine amount
before the trial Court. He remained in the custody for 15 months
and there is possibility that his sentence may be reduced to the
period which he has already undergone in the custody.
Therefore, there are fair chances of success of this appeal. If
execution of jail sentence is not suspended, then present appeal
may turn infructuous. Under these circumstances, it is prayed
that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and appellant be
released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.11967/ 2012 is allowed with some tough
conditions.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine
amount in the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of
228

appellant namely Kamal Kanjar shall remain suspended and he
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with two surety
bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 8/10/2012
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
229

Criminal Appeal No.1329/2012
03.09.2012
Shri P.S.Tiwari, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.17084/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant No.3 Surendra.

Appellant No.3 is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 304-B of IPC and sentenced for ten
years' rigorous imprisonment.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant No.3 was on bail during the trial and he did not
misuse the liberty granted to him. Omnibus allegations are made
by the parents and relatives of the deceased, whereas the sister
of the deceased alleged nothing against the appellant No.3. Co-
appellant Kishori Bai was released on bail vide order dated
25.7.2012 and material against the appellant No.3 is similar to
her. Under such circumstances, there are fair chances of success
of this appeal. Therefore, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail
on the ground of parity.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.17084/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant No.3 namely Surendra Kumar shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
230

personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five
thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 9/10/2012 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time till final
adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
231

Criminal Appeal No.1850/2010
31.08.2012
Shri Anuj Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.6066/2012, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

This is repeat application, whereas previous application
was dismissed on 8.10.2010 on merits.

The order dated 8.10.2010 was passed on merits, and
therefore there is no need to re-appreciate the evidence again
and again before disposal of the present appeal. Consequently,
IA No.6066/12 cannot be allowed. Accordingly, it is hereby
dismissed.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
232

Criminal Appeal No.1422/2012
29.08.2012
Shri Kuldeep Singh Rajput, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.15823/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 148, 307/149 of IPC and inflicted
maximum sentence of five years' RI with total fine amount
Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. He has deposited the fine amount before
the trial Court. The appellant was not the main accused in the
case according to the complainant Hardayal (PW-4). Leela Bai
(PW-5) wife of the complainant did not say anything against the
appellant. Similarly, Lakhanlal (PW-6), brother of the
complainant has admitted in his cross examination in para 12
that appellant Lekhram was not present at the time of incident.
Under such circumstances, it appears that the appellant is falsely
convicted. He was not present and he did not participate in the
alleged crime. There are fair chances of success of this appeal.
Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

233

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.15823/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Lekhram shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with a surety bond
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 3/10/2012 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
234

Criminal Appeal No.1326/2012
24.08.2012
Shri J.P.Dhimole, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.13024/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 326 and 294 of IPC and sentenced
for two years' RI with fine amount Rs.700/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial. He did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. He has deposited the fine amount before
the trial Court. He has complied the order of this Court and
surrendered before the trial Court. The copy of the order sheet
dated 24.7.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sidhi is
submitted for perusal. Looking to the period of sentence, the
present appeal cannot be decided in that period. If the appellant
is not enlarged on bail, then the appeal may turn infructuous.
Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.13024/2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Girish Kumar Tiwari shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
235

personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five
thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 27/9/2012 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
236

Criminal Appeal No.1565/2012
24.08.2012
Shri Manish Datt, Sr. Advocate with Shri P. Dubey,
Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.15713/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant No.1.

Appellant No.1 is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 376 and 506-II of IPC and sentenced
for maximum period of seven years' RI with fine amount
Rs.10,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a young youth of 24 years of age, who was on bail
during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.
He is ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial Court.
The prosecutrix was shown to be 20 years of age. The FIR has
been lodged with a delay of six days. On her medico legal
examination, it was found that her hymen was torn in a fresh,
and therefore it appears that the injury caused to the prosecutrix
is not corroborated to the incident which took place six days
prior to the medical examination. Under such circumstances, it
would be apparent that the appellant was falsely implicated in
the matter. No explanation has been given for the delay caused
in the report. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant
No.1 be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

237

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.15713/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant No.1 deposits the
fine amount in the trial Court, then execution of jail sentence of
appellant No.1 namely Kishore alias Pandey shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five
thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 27/9/2012 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
238

Criminal Appeal No.1228/2012
23.08.2012
Shri P.S.Gaharwar, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.12099/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced for one
year's RI with fine amount Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant was on bail during the trial. He did not misuse the
liberty granted to him. He has deposited the fine amount before
the trial Court. Looking to the period of sentence, the present
appeal cannot be decided in that period. If the appellant is not
enlarged on bail, then the appeal may turn infructuous. Under
these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.12099/2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Kanhaiyalal shall remain suspended and he
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with a surety bond
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 24/9/2012 and
239

on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
240

Criminal Appeal No.1361/2012
13.08.2012
Shri Pramod Thakre, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.15673/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellants.

Appellants are convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 307/149, 326/149 and 147 of IPC and
inflicted maximum sentence of five years' RI with total fine
amount Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants are reputed citizen of the locality, who were on bail
during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to
them. They are ready to deposit the fine amount before the trial
Court. Actually no doctor has informed that the injuries caused
to the victim Kalim were fatal in nature, and therefore no
offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out against the
appellants. No injury was found to be caused by sharp cutting
weapon, and therefore no offence under Section 326 of IPC may
be constituted against the appellants. It is alleged against the co-
accused Veeru and Vikky that they assaulted the victim Kalim
by various weapons. However, at the most offence under
Section 325 of IPC may be constituted against the appellants.
There are fair chances of compromise between the parties.
Therefore if execution of jail sentence is not suspended, then
present appeal may turn infructuous. Under such circumstances,
it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellants be released on bail.

241

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.15673/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellants deposit the fine
amount in the trial Court, then the execution of jail sentence of
appellants namely Kalu @ Premlal and Chhotu @ Rajendra
shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees
thirty thousand) each with a surety bond in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 24/9/2012 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time till final
adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
242

Criminal Appeal No.1391/2012
08.08.2012
Shri Aseem Dixit, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.13960/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellants.

Learned counsel for the appellants seeks permission to
withdraw the application on behalf of appellant No.1 Daulat
Vishwakarma.

Prayer is allowed.

Application (IA No.13960/12) is dismissed being
withdrawn for the appellant No.1.

Remaining appellants are convicted for commission of
offence punishable under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC
and sentenced for maximum period of seven years' RI with total
fine amount Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants No.2 and 3 are ready to deposit the fine amount
before the trial Court. They were on bail during the trial and
they did not misuse the liberty granted to them. They were not
aware that co-accused Daulat would assault the main victim
Umesh in such a manner. No common intention of the
appellants No.2 and 3 can be presumed with co-accused Daulat.
Under such circumstances, no offence under Section 307 of IPC
is made out against the present appellants. There are fair
chances of success of this appeal. Remaining offences are not so
grave. Under these circumstances, it is prayed that the execution
243

of jail sentence be suspended and present appellants be released
on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.13960/2012 for appellants No.2 and 3 is
allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellants No.2 and 3 deposit
the fine amount in the trial Court, then execution of jail sentence
of appellants namely Ganesh Vishwakarma and Laxmi
Vishwakarma shall remain suspended and they be released on
bail on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) each with a surety bond
in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before this Court on 17/9/2012.

Case be listed on 17.9.2012 for appearance of appellants
No.2 and 3.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
244

Criminal Appeal No.1207/2012
07.08.2012
Shri Alok Vagrecha, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.11931/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 354 and 458 of IPC and sentenced
for maximum period of one year's RI with total fine amount
Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who was on bail
during the trial. He has deposited the fine amount before the
trial Court. Looking to the period of sentence, the present appeal
cannot be decided in that period. If the appellant is not enlarged
on bail, then the appeal may turn infructuous. Under these
circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.11931/2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Yashvant Singh shall remain suspended and
he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with a
245

surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court for his appearance before this Court on 18/9/2012.
Case be listed on 18.9.2012 for further orders.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
246

Criminal Appeal No.2052/2011
01.08.2012
Shri T.S.Ruprah, Sr. Advocate with Shri H.Ruprah,
Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.10272/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 304 (Part-II) read with section 34 of
IPC and sentenced for ten years' RI with fine amount Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
deceased Satish died due to rupture of spleen. It is nowhere
mentioned in the postmortem report that any of the rib of the
deceased was broken, and therefore it appears that he had an
enlarged spleen. One co-accused Daulat Singh @ Charli Raja
assaulted the deceased by kick on his abdomen, therefore that
was the fatal attempt done by that accused Daulat Singh @
Charli Raja, who is no more at present. It is alleged against the
present appellant that he also participated in assaulting the
deceased. The appellant never knew that co-accused Daulat
Singh @ Charli Raja would assault the deceased in such a
manner. No common intention of the appellant can be presumed
with co-accused. In such circumstances, looking to the overt-act
of the present appellant, only offence under Section 323 of IPC
may be constituted, which is not so grave so that the appellant
can be kept in custody for an unlimited period. There are fair
chances of success of this appeal. Under these circumstances, it
247

is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.10272/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine
amount in the trial Court, then execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Vivek shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with a surety bond in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 12/9/2012 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time.

Case be listed on 13.9.2012 for further orders.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
248

Criminal Appeal No.959/2012
25.07.2012
Shri Ranjeet Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.9053/2012, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376(1) of IPC and
inflicted maximum sentence of seven years' RI with total fine
amount Rs.6000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant a young youth of 24 years of age, who has deposited
the entire fine amount before the trial Court. He has no criminal
past at all. The prosecutrix is shown by her educational record
to be 16 ½ years of age at the time of incident. However,
looking to her physical appearance as depicted in MLC report,
she appears to be 18 years of age. Father of the prosecutrix
Ashok Ahirwar (PW-2) has admitted in para 16 of his statement
that during the period when the prosecutrix was with the
appellant, Amit, brother of the prosecutrix met with the
prosecutrix, who told him that she will come back after one day.
It is also stated by the same witness that he talked with the
prosecutrix on mobile phone to his son Amit at that time. Under
such circumstances, it would be apparent that the prosecutrix
was a consenting party. No offence under Section 366 or 376 of
IPC is made out, whereas offence under Section 363 of IPC is
not so grave. The appellant remained in the custody for one and
half years approximately. Under such circumstances, it is prayed
249

that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present
appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.9053/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Anil Choudhary shall remain suspended and
he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with a surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 12/9/2012
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
250

Criminal Appeal No.1264/2012
20.07.2012
Shri Narendra Nikhare, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.12602/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 304 (Part-II) and 451 of IPC and
inflicted maximum sentence of four years' RI with fine amount
Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal
past alleged against him. He shall deposit the fine amount
before the trial Court. Actually the case was dependent upon the
postmortem report given by Dr. Surendra Singh (PW-5). Dr.
Surendra Singh in his postmortem report Ex.P-12 has
mentioned that the deceased died due to cardiac failure because
he sustained some fatal injuries, and therefore flow of blood
was obstructed. However, in cross examination he found that all
the injuries caused on the chest were of such a nature that those
could be caused by scratching by a nail. No rib was found
broken. If someone is assaulted by kicks and fists or chappal,
then such type of injuries could not be caused to the heart. It is a
case of heart failure and the appellant could not be convicted for
commission of offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-II)
of IPC. The overt-act of the appellant comes under the category
of Section 323 of IPC only. The appellant is in custody for last
one year and if he is not enlarged on bail, then the present
251

appeal may turn infructuous. Under these circumstances, it is
prayed that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.12602/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine
amount in the trial Court, then execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Joharu Banjara shall remain suspended and
he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) with a surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 10/9/2012
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
252

Criminal Appeal No.1222/2012
13.07.2012
Mohd. Ali, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.12048/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

Appellants are convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 326 and 326/34 of IPC and inflicted
maximum sentence of three years' RI with total fine amount
Rs.2000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellants are reputed citizen of the locality, who were on bail
during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted to
them. They have deposited the fine amount before the trial
Court. Looking to the period of the sentence, appellants were
enlarged on bail by the trial Court for a limited period. They
could not get the bail from this Court in that period and
therefore they surrendered before the trial Court on 30.6.2012.
Sufficient time will be required for disposal of the present
appeal, and therefore if execution of jail sentence is not
suspended, then present appeal may turn infructuous. Under
such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on
bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.12048/ 2012 is allowed.

253

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellants namely Firoz Khan, Sanawwar Khan and Shakir
shall remain suspended and they be released on bail on their
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees
thirty thousand) each with a surety bond in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 3/9/2012 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time till final
adjudication of this appeal.

Case be listed for further orders on 4.9.2012.
Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
254

Criminal Appeal No.1118/2012
02.07.2012
Shri Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.10619/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 376(1) and 450 of IPC and inflicted
maximum sentence of seven years' RI with total fine amount
Rs.4000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant shall deposit the entire fine amount before the trial
Court. The appellant is a young youth of 22 years of age, who
was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty
granted to him. The prosecutrix is shown to be 19 years of age.
The FIR was lodged with a delay of at least two days. No any
corroboration was found in her medical report. On the contrary,
she has admitted that before the incident lamp was illuminated
in the room and was blown by the air. Under such
circumstances, there was no light by any means. The prosecutrix
did not say about the fact that as to how she could identify the
appellant. It appears that either the prosecutrix was a consenting
party or the appellant is falsely implicated in the matter. There
are fair chances of success of this appeal. If execution of jail
sentence is not suspended, present appeal may turn infructuous.
Under such circumstances, it is prayed that the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

255

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.10619/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine
amount in the trial Court, then execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Manoj Dheemar shall remain suspended and
he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with a surety
bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for
his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 30/8/2012
and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time
to time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
256

Criminal Appeal No.1226/2012
29.06.2012
Shri Jafar Khan, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.12083/2011, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 323 of IPC and sentenced for three
months' RI with fine amount of Rs.1000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court
and trial Court has suspended the execution of jail sentence of
the appellant upto 4.7.2012. The appellant remained on bail
during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.
Present appeal cannot be decided within three months, and
therefore if execution of jail sentence is not suspended, present
appeal may turn infructuous. Consequently, it is prayed that the
execution of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be
released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.12083/ 2011 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Babu shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with a surety bond in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
257

appearance before the Registry of this Court on 27/8/2012 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
258

Criminal Appeal No.435/2012
27.06.2012
Shri G.S.Baghel, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.3409/2012, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant No.1 Praveen Singh @ Reshu Singh.

Appellant No.1 is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced for five
years' RI with fine amount Rs.5000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant No.1 submits that the
appellant No.1 has deposited the fine amount before the trial
Court. The offence under Section 325 of IPC is compoundable
and there are fair chances of compromise between the parties.
Consequently, there are fair chances of success of this appeal.
Appellant No.1 was on bail during the trial and he did not
misuse the liberty granted to him. Consequently, it is prayed that
the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present
appellant No.1 be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.3409/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that execution of jail sentence of
appellant No.1 namely Praveen Singh @ Reshu Singh shall
remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty
thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the
259

satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 3/9/2012 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time till final
adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
260

Criminal Appeal No.2841/2011
22.06.2012
Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.24537/2011, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 366 and 376(2)(g) of IPC and
inflicted maximum sentence of 10 years' RI with total fine
amount Rs.4000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that initially
the name of one Raju Kalua was mentioned in the report
relating to missing of the prosecutrix Ex.P-10 and thereafter the
name of Raju Kalua was replaced by the name of present
appellant due to enmity. The prosecutrix (PW-6) has admitted in
para 14 of her cross examination that her father directed her that
now prosecutrix has to inform the name of Raju Raghuvanshi in
place of Raju Kalua, and therefore in her each statement she
told the name of Raju Raghuvanshi to be the main accused.
Under such circumstances, it is submitted that the appellant is
falsely implicated in the matter. He is in custody without any
substantial reason. It is further submitted that the appellant was
kept in custody for the entire trial without any reason.
Consequently, it is prayed that the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

261

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.24537/ 2011 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine
amount in the trial Court, then execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Raju alias Rajesh Raghuvanshi shall remain
suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a
personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five
thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 27/8/2012 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time till final
adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
262

Criminal Appeal No.2973/2011
22.06.2012
Shri S.K.Dwivedi, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.10695/2012, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and
inflicted maximum sentence of 7 years' RI with total fine
amount Rs.5000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
prosecutrix was shown to be 17-19 years of age in the
ossification test and looking to the statement of the prosecutrix
(PW-1) it would be apparent that there were several
opportunities to the prosecutrix where she went to the public
places and she could make hue and cry, but she did not make it.
She moved with the appellant without any resistance. Under
such circumstances, prima facie it appears that she was a
consenting party. There are fair chances of success of this
appeal. If execution of jail sentence is not suspended, then
present appeal may turn infructuous. Consequently, it is prayed
that the execution of jail sentence be suspended and present
appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.10695/ 2012 is allowed.

263

Thus, it is directed that if the appellant deposits the fine
amount in the trial Court, then execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Arjun Singh shall remain suspended and he
be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with a surety bond in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 27/8/2012 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
264

Criminal Appeal No.233/2012
20.06.2012
Shri Manish Tiwari, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.5647/2012, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and inflicted
maximum sentence of 7 years' RI with total fine amount
Rs.1500/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal
past alleged against him. He was released on bail during the trial
and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him. The deceased
was the wife of the appellant, who died after 7 years of her
marriage, and therefore no presumption under Section 113-A of
the Evidence Act is applicable in the present case. Looking to
the overt-act as established by the prosecution, it does not fall
within the essential ingredients of Section 107 of IPC, and
therefore no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out
against the present appellant. The appellant has already suffered
the custody for more than one year which would be the
sufficient sentence for the offence punishable under Section
498-A of IPC. There are fair chances of success of this appeal.
If present appellant is not enlarged on bail, then present appeal
may turn infructuous. Under such circumstances, the execution
of jail sentence be suspended and present appellant be released
on bail.

265

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.5647/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant namely Hariram shall remain suspended and he be
released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) with a surety bond in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his
appearance before the Registry of this Court on 27/8/2012 and
on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to
time till final adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
266

Criminal Appeal No.543/2012
18.06.2012
Shri K.S.Rajput, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri S.K.Kashyap, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.4423/2012, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 366 of IPC and inflicted sentence of 5
years' RI with fine amount Rs.2,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant is a young youth of 20 years of age, who has no
criminal past alleged against him. He was enlarged on bail
during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.
The prosecutrix was shown to be 16-17 years of age at the time
of incident, but her age could not be ascertained by any
sufficient basis. She could be above 18 years of age according
to the computation of age on the basis of ossification report. She
remained with the main accused for 4-5 days without any
resistance. It appears that she was a consenting party. It is
alleged by the prosecutrix that the appellant closed her mouth
by chunni and thereafter he handed over to the prosecutrix to
the main accused and left the spot. However, eye witnesses
Seema (PW-1) has stated that it was the main accused Motiram
who closed the mouth of the prosecutrix by her chunni. She did
not support the prosecutrix for the evidence given by her against
the present appellant. Under such circumstances, it appears that
the present appellant is falsely implicated in the matter. No role
of the appellant is established by which he may be convicted for
267

the alleged offence. There are fair chances of success of this
appeal. Sufficient time will be required for disposal of the
present appeal. If execution of jail sentence is not suspended,
then present appeal may turn infructuous. Under these
circumstances, the execution of jail sentence be suspended and
present appellant be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.4423/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of
appellant Munna shall remain suspended and he be released on
bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-
(Rupees thirty thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before
the Registry of this Court on 6/8/2012 and on subsequent dates
as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final
adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
268

Criminal Appeal No.1024/2012
18.06.2012
Shri R.S.Patel, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.9770/2012, an application under Section
389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to
the appellants No.1, 2 and 4.

Appellants are convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Sections 307/34 and 323/34 of IPC and
inflicted maximum sentence of 5 years' RI with total fine
amount Rs.3,000/- each.

Learned counsel for the appellants No.1, 2 and 4 submits
that the appellants shall deposit the fine amount before the trial
Court. It is alleged that co-accused Bhola Singh assaulted the
victim Mohan Singh on his head by base of the gun causing
fracture in his head. According to the FIR, it would be clear that
initially co-accused Bhola Singh started the quarrel and present
appellants came to the spot thereafter. No common intention of
the present appellants can be presumed with co-accused Bhola
Singh. Under such circumstances, no offence under Section 307
of IPC is made out against the present appellants either directly
or with the help of Section 34 of IPC. Sufficient time will be
required for disposal of the present appeal. Remaining offences
are not so grave and they are compoundable. There are fair
chances of success of this appeal. Present appellants were on
bail during the trial and they did not misuse the liberty granted
to them. Under such circumstances, the execution of jail
sentence be suspended and present appellants be released on
bail.

269

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, IA No.9770/ 2012 is allowed.

Thus, it is directed that if the appellants No.1, 2 and 4
deposit the fine amount in the trial Court, then the execution of
jail sentence of appellants No.1, 2 and 4 namely Halku Singh,
Narayan Singh and Chandrabhan Singh @ Baddal shall
remain suspended and they be released on bail on their
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees
thirty thousand) each with a surety bond in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 6/8/2012 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time till final
adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
270

Criminal Appeal No.1185/2010
02.12.2011
Shri Om Shankar Pandey, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri G.S.Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
Heard on IA No.23259/2011, an application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant
of bail to the appellant.

Appellant is convicted for commission of offence
punishable under Section 304 Part-I of IPC and sentenced for 10
years' RI with fine of Rs.1,000/-.

This is repeat application on behalf of the present
appellant. His first application was dismissed being withdrawn
on 20.10.2010.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has deposited the fine amount before the trial Court.
He further submits that the appellant is innocent. He has
wrongly been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 304 Part-I of IPC. Actually the victim came with 2-3
bombs. He exploded two bombs. The Investigating Officer
found remains of various bombs from the spot. One live bomb
was found in the pocket of the deceased. In such circumstances,
the appellant assaulted the victim by stone and brick on his head
to save himself and other members of that locality, otherwise by
explosion the victim could cause the death of so many persons.
There are fair chances of success of this appeal, because the
incident took place due to right of private defence, and therefore
the appellant could not be convicted for other offences. The
appellant remained in custody for three and half years and there
are no chances of early hearing of this appeal in near future.

271

Under these circumstances, the execution of jail sentence be
suspended and he be released on bail.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes
the bail application.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned
counsel for the parties and looking to the facts circumstances
of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the
case, IA No.23259/2011 is allowed.

Thus, the execution of jail sentence of appellant Rajesh
@ Padwa is hereby suspended and he be released on bail on his
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
fifty thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the
Registry of this Court on 3/1/2012 and on subsequent dates as
may be fixed by the office from time to time till final
adjudication of this appeal.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge
Ansari
272

First Appeal No.895/2013
23.12.2013
Smt. Amrit Ruprah, Advocate for the appellants.
Shri S. Ganguly, Advocate for the respondents.
Heard on admission.

Appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on IA No.14562/13 an application for stay.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he filed
reply to the application and wants to file some documents.

Case be listed for consideration of IA No.14562/13 in the
week commencing from 6.1.2014.

In the meanwhile, it is directed that the status-quo shall
be maintained by the parties till next date of hearing.

Certified copy as per rules.

         (N.K.Gupta)                               (K.K.Trivedi)
Vacation Judge Vacation Judge

Ansari
Criminal Appeal No.2433/2011
10.10.2014

Shri O.P.Agnihotri, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar, Panel Lawyer for the
respondent/State.

Heard on IA No.16714/2014, a repeat application under
Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the appellant.

The appellant was on bail vide order dated 18.11.2011 and
he could not appear before the office on the given dates. On
6.5.2014 a bailable warrant was issued against the appellant and
thereafter he was arrested and produced before the Court on
9.7.2014. It appears that the appellant was on bail and on his
absent bailable warrant was issued. If the appellant would have
furnished the bail bonds before the serving officer, then he would
have been enlarged on bail. However, now it is directed that if
the appellant namely Dhoor Singh furnishes a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) with one
surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial
Court, then he shall be released on bail, for his appearance before
the Registry of this Court on 9/12/2014 and on subsequent dates
as may be fixed by the office from time to time.

Certified copy as per rules.

(N.K.Gupta)
Judge

Ansari

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation