Allahabad High Court
Pintu Singh @ Pushpendra Singh vs State Of U.P. on 22 May, 2023
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:113824
Court No. - 49
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5354 of 2023
Appellant :- Pintu Singh @ Pushpendra Singh
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Chandrachud Pandey,Santosh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
(Order on the memo of appeal)
Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for appellant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
Admit.
Summon the lower Court record.
(Order on the application for suspension)
Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for applicant-appellant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17.04.2023 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Chitrakoot, in S.T. No. 175 of 2014 (State Vs. Pintu Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 26/2013, under Section 354/506 of I.P.C., and 3(1)(Xi) S.C./S.T. Act, 1989, Police Station- Manikpur, District-Chitrakoot, applicant-appellant has preferred aforementioned criminal appeal.
By means of above noted judgement and order, applicant-appellant has been convicted under Section 354 I.P.C.and consequently sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 3000/- and in case of default, applicant-appellant is to undergo 15 days additional imprisonment. However, the applicant-appellant has been acquitted of the charges under Section 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)(Xi) S.C./S.T. Act.
In view of the period of sentence awarded by Court below, applicant-appellant has been extended the benefit of interim bail vide order dated 17.04.2023 passed by Court below itself. However, as applicant-appellant has been acqui and sentenced by means of above noted judgement and order, he has filed aforementioned application seeking suspension of sentence/bail during the pendency of appeal.
Learned counsel for applicant-appellant contends that applicant-appellant has been convicted only under Section 354 I.P.C.. The maximum sentence awarded to the applicant-appellant is one year. In view of the period of sentence awarded by Court below, the benefit of interim bail has already been extended to the applicant-appellant by Court below itself. There is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in near future on account of heavy pendency of appeals before this Court. The applicant-appellant has not been convicted under the provisions of POCSO Act. The prosecutrix is major, as she is above 18 years of age. Attention of the Court was then invited to the recital contained in paragraph 12 of impugned judgement at page 27 of the paper book and on basis thereof, it is urged that the prosecutrix herself accompanied the applicant-appellant. Moreover, the modesty of the prosecutrix was not dislodge by the applicant by committing sexual assault upon her. Even otherwise, applicant-appellant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except present one. It is thus urged that the interim bail granted to applicant-appellant by court below is liable to be made absolute. However, the applicant-appellant shall not misuse the liberty of bail.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that applicant-appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 354 I.P.C. As such offence complained of is not private in nature but a crime against the society. The crime committed by applicant-appellant falls in the category of moral turpitude. Interest of justice shall better be served in case the appeal itself is heard on merits by fixing a short date instead of deciding the bail matter. As applicant-appellant is a convicted accused he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant-appellant with reference to the record at this stage.
Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant-appellant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of record, evidence, complicity of applicant-appellant and accusations made coupled with the fact that the maximum sentence awarded to the applicant-appellant is one year, applicant-appellant has been convicted and sentenced only under Section 354 I.P.C., there being nothing on record to show that the modesty of prosecutrix was dislodged by the applicant-appellant by committing sexual assault upon her, the prosecutrix being major, clean antecedents of the applicant-appellant, the recital contained in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgement at page 27 of the paper book, the prosecutrix having herself accompanied the applicant-appellant but without making any comments on the merits of the appeal, applicant-appellant has made out a case for bail. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to applicant-appellant is made absolute.
However, the applicant-appellant shall deposit the entire amount of fine awarded by court below within a period of one month from today with court below failing which the bail granted to applicant-appellant shall stand cancelled and he shall be taken into custody at once to serve out the sentence.
Order Date :- 22.5.2023
Imtiyaz
