Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1260 of 2018 Appellant :- Rajesh Lodhi Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jaysingh Yadav
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, Sri Jaisingh Yadav, learned counsel for the first informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that applicant-appellant has been falsely implicated and wrongly convicted for the offences under Sections 304(1)/34. 323/34 & 504 I.P.C.; that the applicant- appellant has been sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for a maximum period of ten years and fine under Section 304(1)/34 I.P.C.; that as per prosecution case, in the incident in question, the applicant-appellant has been assigned with the role of caught hold of deceased and role of causing fatal injuries, has been assigned to co-accused Laxman Singh; that the applicant-appellant has also been assigned with the role of causing injuries to Smt. Usha, which are found to be simple in nature and on non-vital part; that the case of the applicant-appellant is distinguishable from co-accused Laxman Singh, who has been assigned with the role of causing fatal injuries with the spade; that during trial applicant-appellant was on bail and has not misused the liberty of bail and is in custody since the date of judgment of conviction i.e. 12.02.2018; that the entire prosecution story is absolutely false and incorrect; that there are material contradictions in prosecution evidence; that the trial court has acted wrongly and illegally in convicting the accused-appellant and he has every hope of success in appeal; that there is no likelihood of appeal to be heard in near future due to huge pendency of old appeals before the court; that the applicant-appellant has no criminal history; that the applicant-appellant undertakes that he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall remain present before the Court as and when required and he will cooperate with the hearing of appeal for which his counsel will remain present on the dates of listing.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of bail and contended that the applicant-appellant have been rightly convicted for the offences; that there is sufficient evidence of offences on record against the applicant- appellant.
Considering the unlikelihood of early hearing of appeal, complicity of convicts and sentence as well as totality of facts and circumstances, at this stage without commenting on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for grant of bail during pendency of the appeal.
Let the applicant-appellant Rajesh Lodhi be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Judge concerned in S.T. No. 106 of 2014, Case Crime No.332 of 2014, under sections 304,323,504 I.P.C., P.S. Talbehat, District Lalitpur, and subject to deposit of 50% amount of fine imposed on them and undertaking that applicant- appellant will cooperate with the hearing of the appeal.
As soon as personal and surety bonds are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by trial Judge concerned to be kept on the record of this appeal.
Order Date :- 20.9.2018 Vibha