High CourtsSingle Bench

Kunwar Pal and Another vs State of U.P.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 23 June 2011 · Citation: (2011) 06 AHC CK 0029

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bala Krishna Narayana, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 148, 149, 308, 325
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Exemption Application No. 174244 of 2011 in Criminal Appeal Defective No. 402 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 412 words

Bala Krishna Narayana, J.—The certified copy of the judgment and order dated 17.6.2011 has been filed along with Criminal Appeal No. 3613 of 2011 preferred by the co-accused Rajpal and others.

2.

Accordingly, the Appellants had exempted from filing the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 17.6.2011.

3.

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2.

4.

This criminal appeal has been filed by the Appellants against the judgment and order dated 17.6.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 18, Bulandshahar in S.T. No. 1153 of 2007, State v. Rajpal and Ors. by which the Appellants have been convicted under Sections 148, 325/149, 308/149 and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment each and fine of Rs. 3000/- each with default stipulation.

5.

Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that there was a cross version of the incident and two persons had received injuries from the side of the Appellants which the prosecution had failed to explain and although from the evidence on record it was established that the complainant was the aggressor yet the court below on the basis of absolutely inadmissible evidence convicted the Appellants.

6.

He further submitted that all the Appellants were on bail during the pendency of the trial and there is no instance of misuse of liberty of bail and since this appeal is not likely to be heard in near future, the Appellants entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of this appeal.

7.

Per contra learned Counsel for the Respondents have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

8.

Admit.

9.

Summon the lower court record.

10.

Connect along with Criminal Appeal No. 3613 of 2011.

11.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the Appellants Kunwar Pal and Nanak be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in S.T No. 1153 of 2007 under Sections 148, 325/149, 308/149 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar as soon as personal and surety bonds are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by the trial Judge concerned to be kept on record of this Appeal.

12.

Realization of 50% of fine shall remain stayed during the pendency of this appeal.