Allahabad High Court
Sanju @ Sajju And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 March, 2021
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3734 of 2020
Appellant :- Sanju @ Sajju And Another
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Akhilesh Pandey,Rafeek Ahmad Khan
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
(Order on Appeal)
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A.
Perused the judgment.List this case in due course for hearing.
(Order on Bail Application).
Heard learned counsel for the appellants/applicants, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
Applicants/appellants have been convicted in S.T. No. 64 of 2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 654 of 2018, P.S. Kotwali Nagar Mahoba, District- Mahoba under Section 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 4 of the POCSO Act and has been sentenced for the offence under section 366 I.P.C. for 5 years imprisonment and fine of Rs.3000/-. for the offence under section 376 I.P.C. for 10 years imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- and for the offence under section 4 of the POCSO Act for 10 years imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/-
Learned counsel for the appellants / applicants submits that the applicants-appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that although the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. and after recovery the victim in her statement recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. stated that rape has not been committed by the appellant but during trial there is improvement in the statement of the victim and she stated that rape has been committed by the appellant-applicant. As per radiological report the age of the victim is about 18 years. He further submits that the learned trial court without appreciating the evidence on record has convicted the appellants. He further submits that the applicants-appellants were on bail during trial and have not misused the liberty of bail. He further submits that the applicants are in jail since 9.12.2020. He next submitted that due to huge pendency before this Court, there is no chance for expedite disposal of the appeal and applicants / appellants are 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 the applicants/appellants have rightly been convicted for the offence and there is sufficient evidence available on record against the applicants/appellants. Learned A.G.A has further submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order and judgment, hence, the applicants/appellants are 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 appellants/applicants during the pendency of the appeal.
Let the appellants/applicants Sanju @ Sajju And Sameer Khan be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court below on the condition that the appellants/applicants 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 :- 24.3.2021
Anuj Singh
