Vijendra vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 2281 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 87
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3221 of 2020
 

 
Appellant :- Vijendra
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Mohit Behari Mathur
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

(Order on Appeal)

Heard.

Admit.

Summon the lower court record.

List in due course after receipt of record.

(Order on Bail Application)

Heard learned counsel for the appellant / applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

Applicant / appellant has been convicted in S.T. No. 18 of 2019 (State Vs. Vijendra) arising out of Case Crime No. 35 of 2019, under sections 377 I.P.C. and section 6 of POCSO Act, P.S. Shahjadnagar, District-Rampur.

Learned counsel for the appellant / applicant submits that the appellant / applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case due to malafide intention. It is further submitted that victim as well as father of victim did not support the prosecution version and declared hostile during trial. But learned trial court only on the basis of suspicion and medical report, wrongly convicted the appellant without appreciating the evidence available on record. It is further submitted that during trial Doctor has clearly stated that defenite opinion about sexual assault could not be given. Learned counsel next submitted that due to huge pendency before this Court, there is no chance for expedite disposal of the appeal and appellant / applicant is ready to co-operate with the hearing of appeal for early disposal of this appeal. He is in jail since 14.2.2019.

Learned A.G.A for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant / appellant has rightly been convicted for the offence and there is sufficient evidence available on record against the applicant/appellant. Learned A.G.A has further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order and judgment, hence, the applicant/appellant is not entitled for bail.

After hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perusal of record and period of sentence, without expressing any opinion on merits, I find that it is a fit case for grant of bail of appellant / applicant during the pendency of the appeal.

Let the appellant / applicant-Vijendra be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court below on the condition that the appellant / applicant will co-operate with the hearing of the appeal. However, it is made clear that the fine has not been stayed.

As soon as personal bonds and surety bonds are furnished, photocopies of the same are directed to be transmitted to this Court forthwith by trial Judge concerned to be kept on the record of this appeal.

Order Date :- 12.2.2021

Vibha Singh