Allahabad High Court
Rinku vs State Of U.P. on 15 March, 2021
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 602 of 2020
Appellant :- Rinku
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
(Order on Appeal)
On perusal of the appeal it reveals that co-accused Sahab Singh was also convicted by the trial court.
Office is directed to tag the appeal of Sahab Singh along with this file.
Lower court record has already receive in office.
Office is directed to prepare a paper book and hand over a copy thereof to learned counsel for the appellant on payment of usual charges and free of cost to the learned A.G.A.
List on 24.05.2021 for final hearing in the additional cause list.
(Order of Bail Application)
Heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
Applicant/appellant Rinku has been convicted in S.T. No. 552 of 2016 arising out of Case Crime No. 124 of 2016, P.S. Raksa, District Jhansi, convicting and sentencing the appellant three years imprisonment for the offence under Section 363 IPC and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine, one month additional imprisonment, five years imprisonment for the offence of under Section 366 IPC fine Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, one months additional imprisonment, seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence of under Section 4 POCSO Act, fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, three months additional imprisonment.
Learned counsel for the appellant / applicant submits that the applicant-appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is no mark of injury shown on the body of the deceased in the medical examination. He further submits that the learned trial court without appreciating the evidence available on record has wrongly convicted the appellant. He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 23.06.2016. He next submitted that due to huge pendency before this Court, there is no chance for expedite disposal of the appeal and applicant / appellant is ready to co-operate with the hearing of appeal for early disposal of this appeal.
Learned A.G.A for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that victim is minor aged about 14 years at the time of incident and alleged offence is serious in nature, 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.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for bail. The bail application of the appellant is hereby rejected.
Order Date :- 15.3.2021
Ujjawal
