Allahabad High Court
Santosh Gautam vs State Of U.P. on 3 June, 2022
Bench: Subhash Vidyarthi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2145 of 2018
Appellant :- Santosh Gautam
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Soniya Mishra,Neeraj Singh,Rajiv Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
Order on Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 130739 of 2018
1. Heard Sri Neeraj Singh, Advocate, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking bail for the appellant, in Case Crime No. 446 of 2015, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section POCSO Act, Police Station Gangaghat, District Unnao pending decision of the Criminal Appeal filed by him against the judgment and order dated 30-08-2018 passed by the learned Special Judge POSCO Act / Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Unnao, convicting the appellant for the offences under Section 366 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.
3. In the affidavit dated 12-11-2018 filed in support of the application for bail, it has inter alia been stated that the appellant is in jail since the year 2015 and he had already spent more than 4 years out of the total 7 years of imprisonment awarded to him as on 12-11-2018. It has been specifically stated in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant has no criminal history and he has been falsely implicated in the case. It is further stated in the affidavit that the applicant belongs to a respectable family and he will not misuse the liberty of bail. The appellant is ready to follow the conditions imposed by this Court and he will not flee away if bail is granted to him.
4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been sentenced with seven years of rigorous imprisonment out of which, he has already served more than 6 years imprisonment and his appeal is yet to be heard and decided finally.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that Section 436 A of Criminal Procedure Code provides that where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties. Although this provision refers to the period spent in custody during the period of "investigation, inquiry or trial", but the object of this provision appears to be that in case the accused undergoes more than half of the sentence before the final adjudication of his guilt and ultimately he is held to be innocent, the period of his life spent in incarceration cannot be returned to him and, therefore, he should not be made to remain in custody for more than half of the maximum period for which he may be sentenced before his guilt is finally established. He submitted that this principle would apply to the period of pendency of criminal appeal also, as whether the appellant is guilty or not, has to be decided by the Appellate Court while deciding the Appeal filed by the Appellant against the order of his conviction.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the principle of law behind the provision contained in Section 436 A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail to the appellant pending decision of the above noted Criminal Appeal filed by him.
7. Let the appellant Santosh Gautam son of Late Raghunath be released on bail, who has been convicted in Case Crime No. 446 of 2015, for offences under Section 366 IPC and Section POCSO Act, Police Station Gangaghat, District Unnao by means of the judgment and order dated dated 30-08-2018 passed by the learned Special Judge POSCO Act / Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 8, Unnao, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, pending decision of the above noted Criminal Appeal filed by him.
8. The application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 3.6.2022
Ashish pd.
