(In Ref:- C.M. Application No. 92475 of 2017) Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State, pertaining to the prayer of bail of the appellant.
This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 05.07.2017 passed in Session Trial No. 5200051 of 2014, arising out of crime No. 215 of 2013, under Sections 304B, 498-A I.P.C., & Section 4 D.P. Act, Police Station P.G. I, District Lucknow whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 304B I.P.C. for ten years rigorous imprisonment, under Section 498-A I.P.C. for two years imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and for Section 4 D.P. Act, two years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/-.
Learned counsel for the appellant while pressing the prayer of bail submits that, the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the Court below by wrongly appreciating the evidence available on record, while prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Learned counsel for appellant submits that he has been sentenced under Section 304B IPC for a period of ten years of rigorous imprisonment and two years of simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 2000/- as fine. It has been contended on behalf of learned counsel for appellant that the appellant is in jail since 23.06.2013 as such he has been incarcerated for more than half of the imprisonment awarded by the trial court.
It is further submitted that there is no likelihood that the appellant after release on bail may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail, so granted by this Court. There is no previous criminal history of the appellant.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer for bail of the appellant, on the ground that, the appellant has committed a serious and heinous offence and has been rightly convicted by the Court below, and the appellant is not entitled for bail. However, he could not confront the factual submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on the merits of the case and considering the fact that that the applicant is in jail for more than six years and there is no likelihood that the present appeal may be listed for hearing in the near future, this Court is of the view that the case of bail is made out.
Let the appellant Sarju Sharma @ Sanjay involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) Fifty percent of fine imposed by the trial Court shall be deposited within 30 days from the actual release of the appellant, if the same has not already been deposited.
(ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment.
(iii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 27.8.2019 Shanu