Allahabad High Court
Sahjad And Another vs State Of U.P. on 14 June, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 306 of 2021
Appellant :- Sahjad And Another
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Manish Kumar Pandey,Shashi Prakash Giri
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal,Shashi Prakash Giri
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Order on Bail Application
Heard learned counsel for the appellants-applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The appeal was admitted vide order dated 18.2.2021 and matter was adjourned for hearing of the bail application after the notices to the newly added respondents.
The office reports states that the notice has been served on the private respondent however no one appears.
The present bail application has been filed by the appellant-applicants in Sessions Trial No. 51 of 2014 arising out of Case Crime No. 682/2014, under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & 3/4 POCSO Act Police Station Kotwali Sahar, District Bijnor with the prayer to enlarge the appellants-applicants on bail.
I have perused the judgment and order dated 21.11.2020 passed by the trial court convicting the applicant-appellant.
In support of the bail application, the counsel for the appellant-applicant argues that initially the FIR was lodged under Sections 363 and 366 IPC after about substantial delay. In the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. name of the the appellant did not surface subsequently statement was given by the prosecutrix before the court below and the appellants were summoned to face trial under Section 319 Cr.P.C. He argues that in the entire trial, all the witnesses have turned hostile except prosecutrix.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the bail application.
I have perused the statement of the prosecutrix, dealt with in the impugned judgment. Besides her statement there is no medical on record, furthermore there is nothing on record to suggest as to why the prosecutrix herself lodged the FIR under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and not under 376 at the initial stage itself. There are grave contradictions in the judgment.
Considering the submissions recorded above coupled with the fact that the appellants were on bail during the trial and have not misused the said liberty and they are in custody since 21.11.2020, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I find that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Let appellants-applicants Sahjad @ Shahnawaj and Sahnaaj convicted and sentenced vide impugned order dated 21.11.2020 in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to deposit of half amount of fine as imposed by the court below vide impugned order.
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 :- 14.6.2021
piyush
