Back
2023 Supreme(All) 2270
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PRITINKER DIWAKER, KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, JJ.
Arvind Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 5033 OF 2019.
Decided On : 08-02-2023
For the Appellant : Usha Srivastava, Arjit Srivastava, Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Pavan Kishore, Vinod Kumar Srivastava
For the Respondent: G.A., Pavan Kumar
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 120B - Bail application of convicts in a murder case - Convicts sentenced to life imprisonment and other terms of imprisonment - Detention period exceeded ten years, and co-accused granted bail - Court considers grounds for bail, including the substantial time already spent in detention and similar cases - The court decides to grant bail based on the totality of circumstances. (Paras 3, 5, 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
The judgment arises from sessions trials convicting the appellants of serious charges and imposing significant sentences including life imprisonment. The appellants' bail requests were based on their prolonged detention and the granting of bail to co-accused.
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledges the lengthy period of incarceration and the decisions in comparable cases, choosing to release the appellants on bail after considering the evidence and the overall context without addressing the case's merits.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the significant confinement time and the bail granted to co-accused justified releasing the appellants on bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the combination of the lengthy detention, pending appeal duration, and precedent of granting bail to others in similar circumstances warranted the approval of bail, illustrating a balance between justice and liberty.
Result: Bail granted to the appellants.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction and sentencing details (Para 3) |
| 2. arguments for and against bail (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. bail granted and procedural orders (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT
Order on Bail Applications
2. Heard Sri. Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri. Aushim Luthra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. J.K. Upadhyay, learned AGA for the State, Shri. Pavan Kumar learned counsel for the first informant.
3. As these three appeals arise out of impugned judgement and order dated 06.06.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, court No. 6, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No. 48 of 2013 connected with Sessions Trial Nos.321 of 2013 and 531 of 2013, arising out of Crime No. 1411 of 2011, P.S. Kotwali, District- Mainpuri, convicting the accused appellants Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar @ Chandu and Rishi Kumar and sentencing them to undergo two years' simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 147 IPC, three years' simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 IPC and imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 /149 IPC along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default thereof, to undergo one year's additional simple imprisonment, and imprisonment for life for the offence under section 120B IPC along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default thereof, to undergo one year's additional simple imprisonment, the respective bail applications filed on behalf of appellants are being disposed of by this common order.
4. In these applications, the appellants seek suspension of sentence and grant of bail.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants has pressed the present bail application mainly on the ground that appellants are in jail for the last more than ten years. He further submits that co-accused Pramod Kashyap and Adesh Kumar have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel submits that the appeals may take some time for its final disposal and in the light of the judgement passed by Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh v. State of U.P. 2022, SCC Online SC 697 and Suleman v. The State of U.P. , 2022 SCC Online SC 1042, the appellants are entitled to be released on bail.
6. On the other hand, learned State counsel though opposes the bail applications but admitted the detention period of accused appellants.
7. Considering the totality of the case in particular the nature of evidence available on record, detention period of the appellants, the fact that the appeals may take some time for its final disposal and further considering that co-accused Pramod Kashyap and Adesh Kumar have already been granted bail by this Court and the judgements of Supreme Court, without further commenting on the merits of the case, we are inclined to release the appellants on bail.
8. Let appellants Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar @ Chandu and Rishi Kumar convicted and sentenced in the above mentioned sessions trial be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each (Fifty Thousand) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
9. On acceptance of bail bond and personal bond, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.
10. List the appeal for final hearing in its due course.
11. In the meanwhile, Registry to prepare paper book, if not already prepared.
