# Munnu Singh & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 457
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-22
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 7985 of 2023
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/munnu-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-53704
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Amrendra Nath Rai, G.A., Sanjay Singh

Issue for Consideration
The applicant is a government servant(Clerk in
Nagar Panchayat who was suspended from his
job on 28.07.2023 following his convictionAppellant
sought
suspension
due
to
job
suspension and departmental charge-sheet as
he is sole breadwinner.

Headnotes
Criminal
law-Criminal
procedure
code,1973-S.
389(1)-Suspension
of
Conviction and sentence-Indian Penal
Code,1973-Ss. 304, 307, 504 ,S.25 of the
Arms act-Appellate courts can suspend
conviction
in
exceptional
cases
considering the factors include accusation
nature, crime manner, gravity of offenceapplication
allowed-Conviction
and
sentence dated 13.07.2023 suspended
pending appeal.
Held
The court held that the power under section
389(1) Crpc to suspend conviction exists but
confined to exceptional cases,not routine upon
mere filing of appeal-Court must assess offence
gravity crime nature,manner, post-conviction
release
desirability,
and
convictions'
ramifications-Prior bail compliance during trial
loses significance post conviction-In instant case
offences unconnected to appellants positionsuspension of conviction would not breach
service rules permitting termination during
criminal probes involving moral turpitude or
duty related charges-Conviction and sentence
suspended
pending
appeal-inoperative
till
disposal.(Para 7 to 9) (E-6)
Case law Cited
Rama Narang Vs Ramesh Narang (1995)2 SCC
513[1995 Lawsuit (SC) 113],Navjot Singh Sidhu
458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Vs
St.
of
Punj.
&
Anr.
2007(2)
SCC
574,Omprakash Sahni Vs Jai Shankar Chaudhary
& Anr. (2023) 6 SCC 123,Kishori Lal Vs Rupa &
Ors (2004) 7 SCC 638,Vijay Kumar Vs Narendra
& Ors (2002) 9 SCC 364-referred to.
List of Acts
Indian Penal code,1860, Arms Act,1959

List of Keywords
Suspension,
Conviction,
moral
turpitude,
charge-sheet, bread earner, Nagar Panchayat,
Disciplinary proceedings.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7985 of 2023
From the judgment and order dated 22.08.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

 Munnu Singh & Anr Vs. State of U.P.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Appellant:-
Om Narayan Pandey, Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,
Umesh Kumar Singh, Vinod Kumar Kushwaha
Advs.for Respondent:
Amrendra Nath Rai,G.A., Sanjay Singh

## Text

8 All. Munnu Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
457

4.From the perusal of the material on
record and looking into the facts of the case
at this stage it cannot be said that no
offence is made out against the appellants.
All the submissions made at the bar relate
to the disputed questions of fact, which
cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court.
At this stage only prima facie case is to
be seen in the light of the law laid down
by Supreme Court in cases of R.P.
Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.IR. 1960
S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of
Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma, 1992 SCC
(Cr.) 192, and Zandu Pharmaceutical
Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq
and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.)
283. The disputed defence of the
accused cannot be considered at this
stage. Moreover, the appellant has got a
right of discharge before the court below
and he is free to take all the submissions
in the said discharge application before
the trial court.

5.The prayer for quashing the entire
proceeding as well as summoning order of
the aforementioned case is refused.

6.With the aforesaid directions, this
criminal appeal is finally disposed of.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 457
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 7985 of 2023

Munnu Singh & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent
Counsel for the Appellants:
Om Narayan Pandey, Sarvesh Kumar
Dubey, Umesh Kumar Singh, Vinod Kumar
Kushwaha

Counsel for the Respondent:
Amrendra Nath Rai, G.A., Sanjay Singh

Issue for Consideration
The applicant is a government servant(Clerk in
Nagar Panchayat who was suspended from his
job on 28.07.2023 following his convictionAppellant
sought
suspension
due
to
job
suspension and departmental charge-sheet as
he is sole breadwinner.

Headnotes
Criminal
law-Criminal
procedure
code,1973-S.
389(1)-Suspension
of
Conviction and sentence-Indian Penal
Code,1973-Ss. 304, 307, 504 ,S.25 of the
Arms act-Appellate courts can suspend
conviction
in
exceptional
cases
considering the factors include accusation
nature, crime manner, gravity of offenceapplication
allowed-Conviction
and
sentence dated 13.07.2023 suspended
pending appeal.
Held
The court held that the power under section
389(1) Crpc to suspend conviction exists but
confined to exceptional cases,not routine upon
mere filing of appeal-Court must assess offence
gravity crime nature,manner, post-conviction
release
desirability,
and
convictions'
ramifications-Prior bail compliance during trial
loses significance post conviction-In instant case
offences unconnected to appellants positionsuspension of conviction would not breach
service rules permitting termination during
criminal probes involving moral turpitude or
duty related charges-Conviction and sentence
suspended
pending
appeal-inoperative
till
disposal.(Para 7 to 9) (E-6)
Case law Cited
Rama Narang Vs Ramesh Narang (1995)2 SCC
513[1995 Lawsuit (SC) 113],Navjot Singh Sidhu
458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Vs
St.
of
Punj.
&
Anr.
2007(2)
SCC
574,Omprakash Sahni Vs Jai Shankar Chaudhary
& Anr. (2023) 6 SCC 123,Kishori Lal Vs Rupa &
Ors (2004) 7 SCC 638,Vijay Kumar Vs Narendra
& Ors (2002) 9 SCC 364-referred to.
List of Acts
Indian Penal code,1860, Arms Act,1959

List of Keywords
Suspension,
Conviction,
moral
turpitude,
charge-sheet, bread earner, Nagar Panchayat,
Disciplinary proceedings.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7985 of 2023
From the judgment and order dated 22.08.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

 Munnu Singh & Anr Vs. State of U.P.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Appellant:-
Om Narayan Pandey, Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,
Umesh Kumar Singh, Vinod Kumar Kushwaha
Advs.for Respondent:
Amrendra Nath Rai,G.A., Sanjay Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1.Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,
learned counsel for the Applicant/Appellant
No. 1, Sri Amit Sinha, learned AGA for the
State Respondent and perused the record.

2.The
instant
application
at
the
instance of the Applicant/Appellant No. 1,
Munnu Singh son of Sarnam Singh Thakur,
under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. has been
filed seeking the suspension of conviction
and sentence of the order dated 13.07.2023
passed
by
the
Sessions
Judge,
Shahjahanpur in Session Trial No. 450 of
2008 (State Vs. Munnu Singh & others)
arising out of Case Crime No. 33A of 2006
under Section 304, 307, 504 I.P.C., Police
Station Khudaganj, District Shahjahanpur
and Session Trial No. 451 of 2008 (State
Vs. Ramautar) arising out of Case Crime
No. 41 of 2006, under Section 25 of Arms
Act, Police Station Khudaganj, District
Shahjahanpur and sentencing him to
undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.
15,000/- each under Section 304 (Part-I)/34
I.P.C. in default thereof to undergo one
year additional rigorous imprisonment,
seven years rigorous imprisonment with
fine of Rs. 10,000/- each under Section
307/34 I.P.C. in default thereof to undergo
six
months
additional
rigorous
imprisonment and one year imprisonment
with fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 504
IPC, in default thereof to undergo two
months additional imprisonment.

3.Learned
counsel
for
the
Applicant/Appellant No. 1 submits that the
conviction and sentence vide order dated
13.07.2023 was assailed before this Court
in Criminal Appeal No. 7985 of 2023
which Appeal has been admitted and is
pending consideration. The Applicant/
Appellant No. 1 was enlarged on bail by
this Court vide order dated 09.11.2023,
however, the conviction and sentence of the
order was not suspended.

4.Learned
counsel
for
the
Applicant/Appellant No. 1 further submits
that the Applicant/Appellant No. 1 was
working as a Clerk in the Office of the
Nagar
Panchayat,
Khudaganj,
District
Shahjahanpur
and
consequent
to his
implication in the FIR and subsequent
conviction and sentence was placed under
suspension vide order dated 28.07.2023 and
Charge-Sheeted by the Department vide
charge-sheet dated 28.03.2024 on the
ground that though he has been bailed out
but the conviction and sentence has not
been kept in abeyance. Resultantly, the
suspension order continues to be operative
8 All. Munnu Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
459
and has not been revoked. It is submitted
that the applicant/appellant is the sole bread
earner of the family and is suffering
immensely on account of his continued
suspension. The Applicant/Appellant No. 1
has not misused the liberty granted by this
Court vide order dated 09.11.2023.

5.Learned
counsel
for
the
Applicant/Appellant No. 1 has placed
reliance upon the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Rama Narang Vs.
Ramesh Narang, reported in 1995(2) SCC
513 [1995 lawsuit (SC) 113] and on the
case of Navjot Singh Sidhu Vs. State of
Punjab and another, reported in 2007(2)
SCC 574 to buttress the submission that
under Section 389 Cr.P.C. conviction of
sentence can both be suspended during
pendency of the Appeal.

6.We have heard the learned counsel
for the Applicant/Appellant No. 1, learned
AGA appearing for the State and perused
the records as also the case laws cited at the
Bar. We are of the considered opinion that
the power to suspend an order of conviction,
apart from the order of sentence, is not alien
to Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C., however, its
exercise should be limited to very exceptional
cases. Merely because the convicted person
files an Appeal to challenge his conviction
the Court should not suspend the operation of
the conviction and the Court has a duty to
look at all aspects including the ramifications
of keeping such conviction in abeyance. The
Apex Court very recently in "Omprakash
Sahni vs. Jai Shankar Chaudhary and
Another" reported in 2023(6) SCC 123
while considering the scope of Section 389
Cr.P.C. in cases of life imprisonment held as
under:-

"30. In Kishori Lal v. Rupa and
Others, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 638, this
Court has indicated the factors that require
to be considered by the courts while
granting benefit under Section 389 of the
Cr.P.C in cases involving serious offences
like murder etc. Thus, it is useful to refer to
the observations made therein, which are
as follows:

"4. Section 389 of the Code deals
with suspension of execution of sentence
pending the appeal and release of the
appellant on bail. There is a distinction
between bail and suspension of sentence.
One of the essential ingredients of Section
389 is the requirement for the appellate
court to record reasons in writing for
ordering suspension of execution of the
sentence or order appealed against. If he is
in confinement, the said court can direct
that he be released on bail or on his own
bond.
The
requirement
of
recording
reasons in writing clearly indicates that
there has to be careful consideration of the
relevant aspects and the order directing
suspension of sentence and grant of bail
should not be passed as a matter of routine.

5. The appellate court is dutybound to objectively assess the matter and
to record reasons for the conclusion that
the case warrants suspension of execution
of sentence and grant of bail. In the instant
case, the only factor which seems to have
weighed with the High Court for directing
suspension of sentence and grant of bail is
the absence of allegation of misuse of
liberty during the earlier period when the
accused-respondents were on bail.

6. The mere fact that during the
trial, they were granted bail and there was
no allegation of misuse of liberty, is really
not of much significance. The effect of bail
granted during trial loses significance
when on completion of trial, the accused
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
persons have been found guilty. The mere
fact that during the period when the
accused persons were on bail during trial
there was no misuse of liberties, does not
per se warrant suspension of execution of
sentence and grant of bail. What really was
necessary to be considered by the High
Court is whether reasons existed to
suspend the execution of sentence and
thereafter grant bail. The High Court does
not seem to have kept the correct principle
in view."

31. In Vijay Kumar v. Narendra
and Others reported in (2002) 9 SCC 364
and Ramji Prasad v. Rattan Kumar
Jaiswal and Another reported in (2002) 9
SCC 366, it was held by this Court that in
cases involving conviction under Section
302 of the IPC, it is only in exceptional
cases that the benefit of suspension of
sentence can be granted. In Vijay Kumar
(supra), it was held that in considering
the prayer for bail in a case involving a
serious offence like murder punishable
under Section 302 of the IPC, the court
should consider the relevant factors like
the nature of accusation made against the
accused, the manner in which the crime is
alleged to have been committed, the
gravity of the offence, and the desirability
of releasing the accused on bail after they
have been convicted for committing the
serious offence of murder."

7.In the case at hand, we find that
admittedly the Applicant/Appellant No.1,
Munnu Singh is a Government Servant
and
is
being
proceeded
with
Departmentally
and
has
also
been
Charge-Sheeted.
The
applicant
was
suspended vide order dated 28.07.2023.
The suspension order has been continued
and
disciplinary
proceedings
are
contemplated against the applicant. The
applicant has been released on bail by
this Court vide order dated 09.11.2023.
Under the relevant Service Rules, a
Government Servant against whom an
investigation, inquiry or trial relating to
criminal charge, which is connected
with
his
position
as
Government
Servant or which is likely to embarrass
him in discharge of his duties or which
involves
moral
turpitude
may
be
suspended. On the aforesaid charge, a
Government Servant can be terminated
holding independent inquiry by the
disciplinary
authority
even
during
pendency of the criminal case on same
charges.

8.In
the
case
at
hand,
the
Applicant/Appellant No. 1 has been
convicted
for
the
charges
under
Sections 304, 307, 504 I.P.C., Section
25 of the Arms Act, which is not
connected with his position as Clerk,
Nagar Panchayat, Khudaganj, District
Shahjahanpur, nor it is an offence
relating to moral turpitude. In case an
order suspending the conviction and
sentence is passed, it would not violate
any statutory provision.

9.In view of the above, we are of
the opinion that the application moved
by the Appellant No. 1, namely Munnu
Singh son of Sarnam Singh Thakur
deserves
to
be
allowed
and
is
accordingly allowed. The order of
conviction
and
sentence
awarded
against the Applicant/Appellant No. 1
dated 13.07.2023 is suspended and the
conviction shall not be operative till the
decision of the Appeal.

10.List before appropriate Court for
final hearing in the month of November,
2025.
8 All. Ravindra Kumar Verma @ R.K. Verma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
461
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 461
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 12727 of 2024

Ravindra Kumar Verma @ R.K. Verma &
Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Pankaj Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Manoj Kumar

Issue for Consideration
The matter pertains to the cheating and forgery
of
the
documents-The
appellants
falsely
implicated
with
the
allegations
that
The
apellants along with co-accused opened the
Osam Infra Project company, deposited the
money of the informant and others and
prepared forged documents.

Headnotes
Criminal
law-SC/ST
Act-S.
14A(2),3(2)(V) -Indian Penal Code,1860Ss. 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471,34,
120-B, 504, 506-No new ground to
enlarge
the
appellant
on
bail
-no
illegality or perversity in the impugned
order-Appeal dismissed.

Held
The court found no new ground for the bail
after considering the facts and circumstances
offence
nature(fraud/forgery)
,
evidence
,accused
complicity,
punishment
severity,
criminal history of 17 cases-Appeal dismissedbail rejected. (E-6)

List of Acts
SC/ST Act,1986, Indian Penal Code, 1860
List of Keywords
Complicity, offence, fraud , forgery ,criminal
history.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION:
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12727 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Ravindra Kumar Verma @ R.K. Verma &
Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Appearances for Parties
Adv. for Appellant(s):
 Pankaj Kumar Dwivedi
Advs. for Respondent(s):
 G.A.,Manoj Kumar

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar
Yadav, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant, learned AGA as well as perused
the entire record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section
14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has
been filed by the appellant- Ravindra
Kumar Verma @ R.K. Verma and Rajeev
Kumar Prajapati @ Rajeev Prajapati to set
aside the impugned bail rejection order
dated 17.10.2024 passed by Special Judge
(SC/ST Act) Varanasi in Bail Application
No.3540 of 2024 in Case Crime No. 354 of
2021, under sections 419, 420, 406, 467,
468, 471, 34, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC &
3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Cantt,
District- Varanasi

3. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the appellant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. Learned
counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant has not committed any offence as
alleged in the impugned FIR. There are
much contradiction in the version of FIR,