Allahabad High Court
Sudeep vs State Of U.P. on 1 August, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5353 of 2021
Appellant :- Sudeep
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- B.N.Singh,Santosh Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Order on Bail Application
1.Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P., and perused the record.
2.This Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the appellant, namely Sudeep against the judgment and order dated 29/30.10.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge / Special Judge (POCSO Act), Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Case No. 20/2018 (State of U.P. vs. Sudeep) arising out of Case Crime No. 200 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Sections 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station Madhogarh, District Jalaun convicting and sentencing the appellant as under :-
a. For the offence under Section 363 IPC, four years rigorous imprisonment, with fine of Rs. 4,000/- and in default of payment of fine, one month additional imprisonment.
b. For the offence under Section 366 IPC, six years rigorous imprisonment, with fine of Rs. 6,000/- and in default of payment of fine, two months additional imprisonment.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3-It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that findings recorded by the trial Court for convicting and sentencing the appellant are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Appellant is in jail since 21.12.2017. The maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is up to six years and as per custody certificate dated 24.01.2022, appellant has actually served 4 years 1 month and 4 days in jail (4 years 1 month and 16 days with remission) out of total sentence of six years. Lastly, it is submitted that on account of huge pendency of cases before this Court, there is no likelihood of final hearing of this appeal in near future, therefore appellant is entitled for bail.
4- Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail by contending that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant but could not dispute that in connection with the present case, the appellant suffered incarceration of the period noticed above.
5-Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, considering gravity of the offence as well as looking to the detention period of the appellant in jail as mentioned above, I find that the appellant has made out a case for grant of bail in the light of order dated 05.10.2021 of the Apex Court in the matter of Saudan Singh Vs. State of U.P. in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4633 of 2021, 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 221, wherein it has been observed by the Apex Court that there may be even convicts in custody in cases other than life sentence cases and in those cases again the broad parameter of 50 per cent of the actual sentence undergone can be the basis for grant of bail.
6- In view of the above without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, let appellant namely, Sudeep, who is convicted and sentenced by judgment and order dated 29/30.10.2021 as above be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned during pendency of this criminal appeal subject to furnishing undertaking that he will co-operate in hearing of this appeal.
7-Fine shall be deposited before the trial court by appellant within a month after release from the jail.
8-On acceptance of his bail bonds, the lower Court shall transmit the Photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on record of this appeal.
Order on Memo of Appeal.
As per office report dated 17.01.2022, lower Court record has been received.
Office is directed to prepare paper-book.
List this case on 12.10.2022 for final hearing.
Order Date :- 1.8.2022
Saurabh
