Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 396 (ALL)

Arvind Kumar v. State of U. P.

2023-02-08

KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, PRITINKER DIWAKER

body2023
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. 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.