CRLA/380/2017
2023 Latest Caselaw 2106 UK

               Office Notes,
              reports, orders
SL.          or proceedings or
      Date                                       COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No            directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures

                                 CRLA No.380 of 2017
                                 With
                                 IA/2316/2023 (for Second Bail Application)
                                 Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Ms. Sheetal Selwal, legal aid counsel for the appellant/ applicant.

Mr. Tumul Kumar Nainwal, Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand.

The appellant, herein, is a convict for commission offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 376(i) of IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. As a consequence of judgment of conviction dated 31.08.2017, he has been directed to undergo a sentence of 5 years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence u/s 363 of IPC, 5 years for the offence under Section 366-A of IPC, 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 376(i) of IPC and 10 years for the offence under Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

The applicant's case in the second bail application is that the incident has chanced on 22.12.2016 and ever since when the victim was recovered from the accused on 28.12.2016, he was arrested and since then he has been languishing in jail.

The first bail application of the applicant was rejected by an order of 16.03.2018. The applicant is pressing the second bail application on the ground that the applicant as of now has already served about seven and a half years of the sentenced as imposed upon him. As such, the second bail application has been pressed on the ground that since being a young boy, who has been convicted for by the aforesaid judgment, he would be entitled to be released on bail in terms of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment as rendered in Sonadhar vs. State of Chattisgarh, SLA (Crl.) No.529 of 2021, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment, has observed that if the convict has served more than 40% of the sentence, then his bail application could to be considered by the Court.

In the instant case, it happens to be much more than 60% to 75% of the sentence, which the applicant has already served.

Owing to the aforesaid simplicitor ground, the applicant is directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing of his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 07.08.2023 R.Bisht