# Arvind Parmar @ Bunty and Ors. (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 318
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-20
- **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arvind-parmar-bunty-and-ors-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-44457
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Sections 457, 380, 411 of IPC-Criminal
appeal against conviction-FIR lodged
against unknown person delay in lodging
the FIR is not explained.

According to prosecution incident took place in
the night of 8.8.2012 and FIR was lodged on
13/14.8.2012 as Case Crime No.1617 of 2012,
under
Sections
457,
and
380
IPC.
Subsequently, appellants arrested by the police
on 14.08.2012. Recovery of the golden
ornaments
made
from
joint
possession.
(Para 3)

CriminalAppeal allowed.(Para 29)

Chronological list of Cases Cited:-

## Text

318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate for the
purposes of search and that the accused
had replied that it was not necessary. As
this fact was not reflected either in the
F.I.R. or in the seizure mahazar and the
independent witness to the mahazar had
not supported the version of the SubInspector this Court held that the
prosecution had failed to establish that
there was compliance with the provision
of Section 50(1) of the Act. As it appears
from the judgment the trial Court in that
case had not considered it necessary to
assess the evidence of Sub-Inspector of
Police since it was of the view that it was
not necessary to comply with the
provisions of Section 50(1). The High
Court had also proceeded on the basis
that the said requirement of Section 50(1)
is directory and, therefore, its noncompliance
was
not
fatal
to
the
prosecution case. It was in the context of
these facts and circumstances that this
Court held:

"Having regard to the fact
that the FIR and Seizure Mahazar do not
mention about the appellant having been
asked before the search was conducted as
to whether he would like to be produced
before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate
and the further fact that P.W.1, the other
independent witness, also does not state
about this we are of the view that the
prosecution has failed to establish that
there was compliance with the provisions
of Section 50 of the Act before conducting
the search of the appellant."

In that case no clear finding was
recorded regarding credibility of the SubInspector of Police who was the only witness
on the point. It was upon appreciation of the
evidence led in that case that it was held that
the prosecution had failed to establish that
there was compliance with the provisions of
Section 50(1) while conducting the search of
the accused. We, therefore, cannot agree
with the submission of Mr. Lalit that this
Court in that case has laid down as a
proposition of law that in absence of
independent
evidence
or
any
other
supporting documentary evidence, oral
evidence of a witness conducting the search
cannot be regarded as sufficient for
establishing
compliance
with
the
requirement of Section 50(1)."

29. In view of totality of facts and
circumstances detailed herein above, there
is no merit in the submissions made by
learned counsel for the appellant and this
court finds that the prosecution has been
able to successfully prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Hence, the conviction
of the appellant is liable to be upheld. On
the question of sentence, this court is of
the view that the learned Trial Court has
considered the aspect of sentence in detail
and has already taken a lenient view and
as such, under facts and circumstances of
the case, there comes no occasion to alter
or reduce the sentence.

30. The present criminal appeal is
devoid
of
merit
and
is
dismissed
accordingly.
------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.08.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5202 OF 2018

Arvind Parmar @ Bunty and Ors.
 ...Appellants (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel
for
the
Appellants:
1 All. Arvind Parmar @ Bunty and Ors. Vs. Stae of U.P.
319
Sri Ram Datt Dauholia, Sri Nanhe Lal
Tripathi.

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

A. Sections 457, 380, 411 of IPC-Criminal
appeal against conviction-FIR lodged
against unknown person delay in lodging
the FIR is not explained.

According to prosecution incident took place in
the night of 8.8.2012 and FIR was lodged on
13/14.8.2012 as Case Crime No.1617 of 2012,
under
Sections
457,
and
380
IPC.
Subsequently, appellants arrested by the police
on 14.08.2012. Recovery of the golden
ornaments
made
from
joint
possession.
(Para 3)

CriminalAppeal allowed.(Para 29)

Chronological list of Cases Cited:-
1. 41 Cr.L.J, 623 (Allahabad), Chhadami v.
Emperor,

2. AIR 1954 SC 39, Trimbak vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh (E-2)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna
Gautam, J.)

1. This Appeal, under Section 374
(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(In short hereinafter referred to as
''Cr.P.C.'), has been filed by the convictappellants, Arvind Parmar @ Bunty Raja,
Rajan @ Rajendra, and Raheem Khan,
against the judgment of conviction, dated
23.07.2018
and
sentences
awarded
therein, by the Court of Additional
District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(U.P. Dacoity Affected Area), Lalitpur, in
Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2013 (State vs.
Arvind Parmar @ Bunty and others),
arising out of Case Crime No. 1617 of
2012, under Sections 457, 380 and 411of
Indian Penal Code (Hereinafter in short
referred to as ''IPC'), Police Station-
Kotwali
Lalitpur,
District
Lalitpur,
whereby
convict-appellants,
Arvind
Parmar @ Bunty Raja, Rajan @ Rajendra
and Rahim Khan have been sentenced
with five years' rigorous imprisonment
and fine of Rs.5,000/-, each, under
Section 380 IPC, and Ten years' rigorous
imprisonment, with fine of Rs.10,000/-,
each, under Section 457 IPC, and three
years' rigorous imprisonment, with fine of
Rs.3,000/-, under Section 411 IPC. In
case of default of deposit of fine of
Rs.10,000, they will have to serve one
year's simple imprisonment, in default of
deposit of fine of Rs.5,000/-, they will
have
to
serve
six
months'
simple
imprisonment and in default of deposit of
fine of Rs.3,000/-, they will have to serve
three months simple imprisonment, with
further direction for concurrent running of
sentences and adjustment of previous
incarceration, if any, in this very case
crime number, with this contention that
the Trial court failed to appreciate facts
and law placed before it and the judgment
of conviction and sentence, awarded,
therein, is illegal, perverse and against the
weight of evidence on record. It was
passed on the basis of surmises and
conjunctures.

2. The occurrence had been said to
have taken place in the night of 8.8.2012
and a first information report was lodged
on 13/14.8.2012 as Case Crime No.1617
of 2012, under Sections 457, and 380 IPC,
Police Station- Kotwali, Lalitpur, District
Lalitpur. Subsequently, arrest of Arvind
Parmar @ Bunty Raja, appellant no.1,
Jeetu Parihar, Rajan, appellant no.2, and
Naval Ahirwar, was shown to have been
made by the Police on 14.8.2012, whereas
Shivam Tiwari, Arvind Pal and Raheem
Khan, appellant no.3, said to have fled
from the spot. Recovery of golden
320 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ornaments was said to have been made
from joint possession of arrested accused
persons. Though the occurrence was said
to have occurred 8.8.2012, but the first
information
report
was
lodged
on
14.8.2012. PW-3, Tariq Khan, had stated
that the arrest of appellant nos. 1 and 2
was made on 14.8.2012 and alleged
recovery of golden ornaments was said to
have been made from them, while
appellant no.3 was said to have fled from
spot, whereas it was a false recovery and
false implication. Hence, this Criminal
Appeal with above prayer.

3. Heard Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi,
learned counsel for the appellant and
learned AGA, appearing for the State and
gone through the impugned judgement as
well as record of the Trial court.

4. From very perusal of the record, it
is apparent that the First Information
Report, Exhibit Ka-1, dated 8.8.2012, was
got lodged by the informant, Satyendra
Singh Parmar, at Police Station-Kotwali
Lalitpur, District Lalitpur, with this
contention that on 8.8.2012, while, he,
alongwith his wife, was at his in-laws
house at Village Bangaria, Police Station
Pali, to attend a marriage ceremony and
there was none at his house, on 9.8.2012,
his land-lord, Uttam
Chandra Jain,
informed him telephonically that locks of
his rooms were broken and household
goods were scattered here and there. On
receiving information, he immediately
rushed to Lalitpur and reached at his room
where he found that Rs.80,000/-, in cash,
and gold ornaments of about one Tola had
been stolen. Unknown thieves opened his
double bed (Diwan), broken locks of
suitcase and hou goods were scattered
here and there. Hence, this report. Case
Crime No.1617 of 2012, under Sections
457 &380 IPC was got registered against
unknown thieves on 13/14.8.2012.

5. On 14.8.2012, while SOG
Incharge, Sumit Kumar Singh, alongwith
his Police Team was on surveillance duty,
informer gave information about presence
of
thieves
near
Cremation
Ghat,
ChandiMataTemple.
This
was
immediately communicated to Inspector,
Incharge,
Kotwali
Lalitpur,
District
Lalitpur, Sri Uday Bhan Singh and called
him to Varni Four-way Junction. A Police
Team led by him, with this Inspector,
proceeded for ChandiMataTemple. On
being pointed by the informer towards
few persons, sitting thereat, Police Team
apprehended four persons at 15.15 PM.
On being asked to disclose identity, first
one told his name Arvind Parmar @
Bunty Raja, reisdent of Nai Basti, Police
Station Kotwali, Behind Little Flower
School, Lalitpur, from whose personal
search, one Mangalsutra of yellow metal,
appearing to be gold, with cash of
Rs.10,000/-, was recovered, other one
disclosed his identity as Rajan, Son of
Govind Singh Bundela, Resident of
Cremation Ghat, Nai Basti, Police Station
Lalitpur, from whom golden chain of
yellow metal, with cash of Rs.12,000/-
was recovered, third one disclosed his
name as Jitu Parihar, Son of Parmanand,
resident
of
Railway
Crossing,
Gandhinagar, Police Station Kotwali,
Lalitpur, from whom, ear ring of gold of
yellow metal was recovered, and fourth
one disclosed his identity as Naval
Ahirvar, Son of Har Naryan, resident of
Nehru Nagar, Infront of Masjid, Police
Station Kotwali, District Lalitpur, from
whom three rings of gold, Rs.32,000/-, in
cash, and one Pendent of yellow metal
was recovered whereas Shivam Tiwari,
Arvind Pal, Banti Dhobi and Raheem
1 All. Arvind Parmar @ Bunty and Ors. Vs. Stae of U.P.
321
managed to escape from the spot. Smt. Prem
Lata Jain, Pramod Kumar, Akhilesh Kumar
Sharma, Smt. Gita, Satendra Singh Parmar
(informant), Balram Pachauri, Niraj Nayak,
Sanjay Tiwari and many others rushed to the
spot, who identified those apprehended
persons to be residents of above locality.
Upon being investigated, those apprehended
persons confessed offence of theft committed
by them and also confessed that Mangalsutra
and one golden ring was stolen from the
house of Smt. Prem Lata Jain, whereas one
golden chain and Rs.2,000/-, in cash, were
stolen from the house of Balram Pachauri,
two golden rings, with cash of Rs.20,000/-,
was stolen from the house of Akhilesh Kumar
Sharma, two ear rings were stolen from the
house of Sanjay Tiwari, Pendent of
Mangalsutra was stolen from the house of
Niraj Nayak and Rs.5,000/-, in cash, was
stolen from the house of Bharat Patel,
Rs.2,000/- was stolen from the house of Gita
and Rs.5,000/-, in cash, was stolen from house
of Pramod. Remaining stolen articles were
taken away by Shubham Tiwari, Arvind Pal,
Bunti Dhobi and Raheem. Alleged recovered
stolen articles were identified by those public
men, who were informants in various cases of
theft, lodged by them, being Case Crime
Nos.1150/2012,
1210/2012,
2420/2012,
1492/2012, 701/2012, 778/2012, 1613/2012,
1617/2012 and 1612/2012, under Sections
457, 380, 411 and 413 IPC. It was presumed
that those accused persons were habitual
offenders of theft, hence they were taken into
custody and recovery memo was got prepared
on the basis of which this implication, under
Sections 457, 380, 411 and 413 was made.

6. On the basis of investigation,
chargesheet was filed and Magistrate took
cognizance over it. As offence, under
Section 413 IPC was exclusively triable
by the court of Sessions, this file was
committed to the court of sessions, where,
after hearing learned Public Prosecutor as
well as learned counsel for defence.
Charges for offence, punishable under
Section 380, 457, 411 and 413 IPC were
framed. Charges were readover and
explained to the accused persons, who
pleaded not guilty and requested for trial.

7. Prosecution examined PW-1,
Satendra Singh Parmar, informant, PW-2,
Head Constable, Chetram and PW-3, Sub
Inspector, Tariq Khan.

8. Statement of accused persons
were got recorded, under Section 313
Cr.P.C. in which prosecution version was
denied and false investigation, with no
confession, was said. No evidence in
defence was led and after hearing
arguments of learned Public Prosecutor
and the counsel for defence, impugned
judgment of conviction for offence,
punishable under Sections 380, 457 and
411 IPC and judgment of acquittal, under
Section 413 IPC was passed.

9. After hearing over quantum of
sentence, impugned sentence was passed.

10. No appeal, by the State against
judgement of acquittal for offence, under
Section 413 IPC, is there.

11. First Information Report, Exhibit
Ka-1 (Paper No. 5Ka), was formally
proved by PW-1, Satendra Singh Parmar
and it has specifically been lodged against
unknown thieves, because this witness
was not present at his home at the time of
alleged
occurrence
of
theft.
In
examination-in-chief, this witness has
said
that
on
8.8.2012,
while,
he,
alongwith his wife, was at his in-laws
house at Village Bangaria, Police Station
Pali, to attend a marriage ceremony and
322 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
there was none at his house, on 9.8.2012, his
land-lord, Uttam Chandra Jain, informed him
telephonically that locks of his rooms were
broken and household goods scattered here
and there. On receiving information, he
immediately rushed to Lalitpur and reached
at the room where he found that Rs.80,000/-,
in cash, and gold ornaments of about one
Tola had been stolen. Unknown thieves
opened his double bed, broken locks of
suitcase and goods were scattered here and
there. Hence, a typed report, under his
signature, was lodged which was got
registered against unknown thieves on
13/14.8.2012.

While he was in search of his stolen
articles,
on
14.8.2012,
he
received
information about arrest of some thieves
by the Police Personnel at Cremation
Ghat,
Nai
Basti,
behind
ChandiMataTemple, Lalitpur and when
this witness reached there, he found four
thieves, apprehended by the Police, were
sitting
infront
of
Cremation
Ghat
(Shamshan Ghat). Apart from him,
Akhilesh Sharma, Advocate, Niraj Nayak,
Smt. Gita Kushwaha and Pramod Gupta,
who were also victim of theft, also
reached on the spot. In their presence,
Police asked names of those four thieves
and on being asked, they disclosed their
names as Arvind, Jitu, Rajan and Naval
Ahirvar and they also disclosed that their
other four accomplices fled away from the
spot. From their personal search, stolen
articles, golden ornaments and cash
money were recovered. They disclosed
that Rs.2,000/-, in cash, was stolen from
the house of informant. Other persons,
who reached there also identified their
house-hold articles, ornaments and cash
money. Recovered articles were sealed on
the spot and recovery memo was also got
prepared on which some persons put their
signatures.

12. In cross-examination, this
witness has categorically said that this
report was not against any specific
person, rather it was against unknown
thieves. He was not aware of either
Arvind @ Banty Parmar or other accused
persons since before. He was informed by
the Police and was called from home
thenafter he reached on the spot where he
has been informed that the recovery has
been made. There was no signature of this
witness on any paper, alleged to have
been prepared on the spot, because no
paper was prepared on the spot. Alleged
recovered articles were not produced
before this witness at the time of his
testimony. No receipt of delivery of
article was ever issued by this witness nor
it was taken by the Investigating Officer.
Meaning thereby, neither recovery was
before this witness nor any specific mark
of identification of alleged recovered
article was there nor any recovery memo
was prepared on the spot nor the same
were produced before the court during
trial nor this witness was previously
acquainted with whereabouts of accused
persons. Thus, this witness does not
support prosecution case at all.

13. The other witness, PW-2, Head
Constable Chet Ram, who is a formal
witness, proved registration of first
information report, under his signature,
Exhibit Ka-3. This registration of report
was against unknown accused persons
for offence, punishable under Sections
457 and 380 IPC. In cross-examination,
it has specifically been said this witness
that the report had been lodged against
the unknown thieves. There was no eye
witness account nor was there any
specific mark identification of any
stolen articles nor receipt of stolen
articles nor any paper relating to
1 All. Arvind Parmar @ Bunty and Ors. Vs. Stae of U.P.
323
ownership
of
stolen
articles
were
produced. By whom stolen articles were
being used and how much older those
stolen articles were also not disclosed in
the report. Reason for delay in lodging
the first information report was also not
disclosed. Meaning thereby, there was
delay in lodging first information report
of which there was no reason nor there
was any specific mark of identification
of stolen articles nor there was any eye
witness account of incident of theft. The
report was against unknown thieves.
Thus, testimony of this testimony is of
relevance to the prosecution and is of no
avail to the prosecution.

14. PW-3 is Sub Inspector, Tariq
Khan. He, in his testimony, has said that
while he was posted at Police Station
Kotwali, Lalitpur, on 13.8.2012, he has
been entrusted with investigation of Case
Crime No. 1617/2-12, under Sections 457
and 380 IPC, On pointing of informant,
he inspected place of occurrence and
prepared site plan and site map, Paper No.
16 Ka, Exhibit Ka-4, which were in his
hand-writing and under his signature. He
recorded statement of scribe of first
information report and landlord Uttam
Chand Jain. He also prepared site plan
and site map of the place, from where
accused persons were arrested, which are
Paper No. 16-Ka/2 and Exhbit Ka-5. On
collecting sufficient evidence against
accused persons, he filed chargesheet
against them on 22.8.2012, which was
Exhibit Ka-6.

15. In his cross-examination, this
witness has stated that case crime number
1617/12 was got registered on 13.8.2012,
without naming any accused nor anyone
has seen occurrence of theft nor identity
of any accused was disclosed in the
statement of any witness. Accused Jitu,
Naval, Arvind @ Bunty, and Rajan were
arrested on 15.8.2012. Arrest was made
by SOG Incharge, Sunit Kumar Singh,
who was accompanied by S.O., Uday
Bhan Singh. No specific mark of
identification of stolen articles was
mentioned in the first information report
nor there was any independent public
witness nor there was signature of
accused on the statement. He did not
remember how many articles pertaining to
occurrences of theft were recovered from
accused persons. Before arrest of accused
persons, none of the witness took their
names. Neither identification parade of
recovered articles nor of accused were
conducted.
Meaning
thereby
his
examination-in-chief and examination-incross is with full of variance. Moreso,
even single iota regarding offence,
punishable under Section 380 IPC or 457
IPC is there, on record, against present
convict appellants, except their alleged
confessions, that too, when they were
apprehended by the Police, which was not
admissible
in
evidence.
If
entire
prosecution case is admitted for the sake
of argument, it may be said that those
accused persons were apprehended with
possession of those recovered articles, but
there is neither any specific mark of
identification
nor
there
is
any
corresponding evidence for connecting
with above offence of theft was there on
record, which was a condition precedent
for offence, punishable under Section 411
IPC.

16. Section 457 of Indian Penal
Code (IPC) provides that ''whoever
commits lurking house-trespass by night,
or house breaking by night, in order to
committing of any offence punishable
with imprisonment, shall be punished
324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to five years,
and shall also be liable to fine, and, if the
offence intended to be committed is theft,
the term of the imprisonment may be
extended to fourteen years'.

17. In present case, learned Trial Judge
has convicted appellants for this offence with
sentence, whereas no evidence of lurking
house-trespass by night or house breaking by
night is there. Theft stands defined in Section
378 IPC. To complete offence, under Section
457 IPC, the ingredient is that burglar, or
house breaker by night, should have an
intention to commit theft. Theft or an intention
to commit theft does actually carry out his
intention to commit theft. Theft or an intention
to commit theft is in no way a necessary
essential ingredient in either of the offences. It
frequently happens that lurking house-trespass
or house-breaking by night is followed by
theft, but the offence can be committed
without theft or any intention to commit it. For
conviction, under Section 457 IPC, the
accused must be proved to have committed
lurking house-trespass or house breaking. A
charge, under Section 457 IPC must be
substantiated by evidence and cannot be
assumed from nothing. If a person is charged
of house breaking and theft and the
commission of theft is established, it would
not follow that commission of other offence of
house-breaking has also been established.
When evidence does not justify a finding that
the accused, who entered inside the house, had
same intention to commit an offence, it is not
trespass. So, then Section 457 IPC goes out of
the way.

18. Allahabad High Court in 41 Cr.L.J,
623 (Allahabad), Chhadami v. Emperor, has
propounded that in order to constitute lurking
house-trespass, the offender must take some
active means to conceal his presence.
Regarding presumption under illustration (a)
to Section 114, Evidence Act, may also attract
a graver offence, like one, under 457 IPC,
where the accused is found in possession of
articles stolen and obtained by housebreaking, it cannot be inferred that he has
committed an offence of house-breaking and
theft. Presumption, under Section 114,
Evidence Act, can be drawn only when the
accused, when asked, is unable to explain his
possession.

19. In present case, no evidence of
house breaking by night or lurking housetrespass by appellants was there, except
alleged recovery of cash, but the same were
not
established
by
specific
mark
of
identification or by denomination of currency
notes recovered, which were alleged to have
been stolen from the house of the informant to
co-relate with the property alleged to have
been stolen from above house-breaking or
recovery of above ornament from convictappellants.

20. Section 411 IPC provides that
whoever dishonestly receives or retains any
stolen property, knowing or having reason to
believe the same to be stolen property, shall be
punished
with
imprisonment
of
either
description for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both. 21.
Apex Court in AIR 1954 SC 39, Trimbak vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, has propounded
ingredients of offence, under Section 411 IPC,
i.e., ingredients, which prosecution has to
establish: (1) that the stolen property was in
possession of the accused, (2) that some person,
other than accused, had possession of the
property before the accused got possession of it
and (3) that the accused had knowledge that the
property was stolen property.

22. In present case, neither
property was duly identified by any
1 All. Ram Nath Vs. Stae of U.P.
325
specific mark of identification nor it was
established before Trial court by way of
producing the same nor its identity was
established in identification parade nor the
same was recovered in presence of informant,
who had disputed alleged preparation of
recovery memo.

23. Under Section 380 IPC, essential
ingredient for offence, punishable under
Section 380 IPC is that accused committed
theft, i.e., theft was committed in any building,
tent or vessel and that such building, tent or
vessel was used as human dwelling or was
used for custody of the property. Hence,
prosecution has to prove points required for
proving of an offence, under Section 379 IPC
plus that the moveable property was taken
away or moved out of a building, tent or
vessel and that such building, tent or vessel
was being used for human dwelling or
custody of moveable property. Intention to
take this dishonestly must be proved.

24. In present case, offence of theft was
got registered by informant against unknown
thieves. Subsequently, alleged recovery of
alleged stolen cash money was said to have
been made from convict-appellants. Offence of
theft or taking of articles from building, by
convict appellants, was not proved by any
witness and on the basis of possession and
presumption, under Section 114, Evidence Act,
offence under Section 380 IPC was deemed to
be proved whereas identification of alleged
recovered cash, with no specific mark of
identification, was neither established, by way
of identification parade, or by way of proving it
before Trial court.

25. Hence, learned Trial court failed
to appreciate facts and law placed before
it and thereby passed judgment of
conviction and sentences therein, against
evidence on record.

26. In view of what has been
discussed above, this Criminal Appeal
deserves to be allowed.

27. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
judgment and order of conviction dated
23.07.2018, passed by the Trial Court, is
hereby set aside and the appellants are
acquitted of all the charges. The appellants
are in jail. They shall be released forthwith, if
not wanted in any other case.

28. Keeping in view the provisions of
section 437-A Cr.P.C. appellants are directed
to forthwith furnish a personal bond and two
reliable sureties, each, in the like amount, to
the satisfaction of Trial court before it, which
shall be effective for a period of six months,
along with an undertaking that in the event of
filing of Special Leave Petition against the
instant judgment or for grant of leave, the
appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall
appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

29. Let a copy of this judgment
along with lower court's record be sent
back to the court concerned for immediate
compliance.
-------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4318 OF 2014

Ram Nath ...Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri D.K. Singh, Sri Girraj Singh, Sri Sharad
Chandra, Ms. Zia Naz Zaidi, Sri Brijesh Sahai.