Dharam Raj vs State of U.P.

Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned A.G.A.

Since appeal has not been admitted as yet and it is a first statutory appeal, therefore, appeal is admitted.

Record of the trial court has already been received. Learned AGA has filed a written objection on the bail prayer of Dharam Raj today in Court, which is taken on record.

It is submitted that the Appellant Dharam Raj, according to his statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure . which is not in dispute, is aged about 70 years. It is further submitted that the Appellant was on bail during trial, which liberty, he has not misused. Additionally, it was contended that the incident occurred on 25.3.2008 regarding which, according to the prosecution allegation, an information was given to S.P. Jaunpur on 5.4.2008 but nothing happened, thereafter on 7.5.2008, a registry was dispatched without yielding any result and consequently on 30.6.2008 after a gap near about 3 months, power of the Magistrate was wielded u/s 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure . on the basis of which, after a gap near about six months on 29.9.2008, the FIR was registered. It is further submitted that the enmity is already admitted and it is because of that reason, Appellant has been falsely implicated, there is scanty chance of appeal being heard in near future.

Learned AGA did not dispute the fact though he supported the judgment of conviction and sentence by contending that a helmet/hut was set ablaze. Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned Counsel for the informant also submitted the same argument. He further submitted that the informant had reached at the spot no sooner, the fire was set ablaze.

Looking to the above argument and period of detention and the fact that the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future, I consider it appropriate to release the Appellant on bail.

Let the Appellant Dharam Raj be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each of Rs. 50,000/- in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Judge concerned in S.T. No. 335/2009 (State v. Dharam Raj) relating to crime No. 793/2008, u/s 436 I.P.C. P.S. Khutahan, District Jaunpur.

The Appellant is allowed one month time to deposit entire amount of fine awarded to him.