Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Sakeel vs State Of U.P. on 18 August, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Pachori
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 14
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1661 of 2013
Appellant :- Mohd. Sakeel
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjai Srivastava,Atul Verma,Gyan Sagar Gupta,Hari Krishna Verma,Rakesh Kumar Srivastava,Sanjeev Kumar Lodhi
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
In Ref: Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1059418 of 2013.
Heard Sri Alim Moid, Advocate holding brief of Sri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vijay Prakash Dwivedi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused under Section 374-(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 23.09.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Lucknow by which awarded sentence under Section 363 of I.P.C. for five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/-. In default of payment of fine appellant to further undergo six months additional rigorous imprisonment; under Section 366 of I.P.C. for seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 30,000/-. In default of payment of fine appellant to further undergo nine months additional rigorous imprisonment; under Section 376/511 of I.P.C. for eight years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 40,000/-. In default of payment of fine appellant to further undergo twelve months additional rigorous imprisonment and all the sentences shall run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that applicant is languishing in jail since 28.07.2012 and the judgment and order has been passed on 23.09.2013 and during trial he was in jail and the sentence awarded to applicant is of 8 years and he has already served more than 10 years of incarceration period which would include one year imprisonment due to non payment of fine as all the sentences would run concurrently.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature.
After considering the facts of the present case it prima facie appears that;
(a) The appellants are languishing in jail since 28.07.2012 and more than 10 years have been elapsed;
It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.
The Supreme Court in case of Suleman Vs. State of U.P. 2022 SCC 1042 and Saudan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2022 O SCC 220 would reveal that one of the directions issued by the Apex Court, which is relevant to this case, is as follows:-
"The second category of cases can be one where the person has served out more than 10 years of sentence. In these cases also at one go bail can be granted unless there are any extenuating circumstances against him.
We are quite hopeful that the High Court will adopt the aforesaid practice and thus prevent the Supreme Court to be troubled with such matters."
Without expressing any opinion on the merits, keeping in mind the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Saudan Singh (supra), I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the bail application is allowed.
Till the next date of listing, effect and operation of impugned judgment and order dated 23.09.2013 shall remain stayed.
Order on Memo of Appeal:
List on 31.08.2022.
Order Date :- 18.8.2022
Ishan
