Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Taufiq & Another vs State Of U.P. on 30 October, 2013
Bench: Ashok Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4803 of 2013
Appellant :- Mohd. Taufiq & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Braham.Singh
Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava,J.
Notice has been accepted by the learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
Objection may be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.
Summon the lower court record.
The appellants namely Mohd. Taufiq and Mohd. Shakeel have found guilty by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Moradabad in S.T. No.190 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No.152 of 2011, Police Station Bhojpur, District Moradabad.
The appellant no.1 Mohd. Taufiq has been sentenced to 10 years R.I. under section 376 I.P.C. besides he has also been convicted and sentenced under sections 363, 366 I.P.C. Fine has also been imposed.
The appellant no. 2 Mohd. Shakeel has been found guilty under sections 363, 366 I.P.C. only and sentenced to 3 years R.I. under section 363 and 5 years R.I. under section 366 I.P. C. Fine has also been imposed.
As far as the appellant no.1 Mohd. Taufiq is concerned, his bail prayer shall be considered after receipt of the written objection and counter affidavit.
Let the matter be listed on 18.12.2013 for disposal of the bail prayer of the appellant no.1 Mohd. Taufiq. By that time the State may file written objection and counter affidavit.
I have heard Shri Ram Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Braham Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.
It has been submitted from the side of the appellant no.2 Mohd. Shakeel that he has been sentenced to only 5 years R.I. My attention has been drawn towards the role assigned to the appellant and it has been submitted that the prosecutrix had gone alongwith the co-appellant Mohd. Taufiq of her sweetwill. It has also been submitted that on the relevant date the prosecutrix was major. My attention has also been drawn towards the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. and an order passed by the S.D.M., Moradabad under section 98 Cr.P.C. and it has been emphasized that on the relevant date the girl was major and from her conduct it appears that she had gone alongwith the appellant no.1 Mohd. Taufiq of her sweetwill.
The bail application has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. My attention has been drawn towards a portion of the judgment in which the learned lower court has dealt with the age of the girl.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In the instant case it is evident that it is an arguable issue whether the girl was major or minor. It appears to be a border line case. The possibility of absence of ingredient of inducement also appears arguable.
In these circumstances, I am of the view that the appellant no.2 Mohd. Shakeel has made out a case for bail.
Let the appellant no.2 Mohd. Shakeel convicted in S.T. No. 190 of 2012 arising out of Case Crime No.152 of 2011, under sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police Statioon Bhojpur, District Moradabad be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
The relalization of half amount of fine imposed upon the appellant no.2 Mohd. Shakeel by the learned lower court shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 30.10.2013
RU
