Court No. - 50
Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.01 of 2018 In Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5568 of 2018 Appellant :- Alok Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Pathak,Chandra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
Heard Shri Chandra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent and perused the record.
Since documents annexed with the memo of appeal (certified copy of lower court order) and the documents (instruction and case diary) available with the learned A.G.A. are sufficient to decide the appeal, the court is proceeding to decide the same.
This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.09.2018 passed by Special Judge (The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012)/ 8th Additional Session Jude, Ramabai Nagar (Kanpur Dehat) in Special Session Trial No.21 of 2013 (State of U.P. Vs. Alok Yadav & another) arising out of Case Crime No.77 of 2013, under Section 323, 354-Kha, 504, 506 IPC and Section 8 of POCSO Act and under Section 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Rajpur, District Kanpur Dehat, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to five year R.I. with a fine of Rs.10,000 and in case of default of fine one month simple imprisonment under Section 354-Kha I.P.C. and under Section 42 of POCSO Act r/w Section 8 of POCSO Act; one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in case of default of fine to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment under Section 323 I.P.C.; one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in case of default of fine to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment under Section 504 I.P.C.; one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in case of default of fine to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment under Section 506 I.P.C.; one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in case of default of fine to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment under Section 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix - P.W.2 in her statement named two witnesses of the incident who had not been produced by the prosecution; the defence has also not supported the prosecution version; appellant has no criminal antecedent; appellant was on bail during trial; appellant is innocent and languishing in jail since 14.09.2018. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail during pendency of this appeal before this Court.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and contended that the court below has rightly convicted the appellant on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence available on the record and the appellant is not entitled to bail.
Considering the submissions made on behalf of parties, without touching the merits of the case at this stage, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled for bail during the pendency of this appeal before this Court.
Let accused applicant-appellant Alok Yadav be released on bail in S.S.T. No.21 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No.77 of 2013, under Sections 323, 354-Kha, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 8 of POCSO Act and Section 3(1) (XI) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Rajpur, District Kanpur Dehat, during the pendency of appeal, subject to his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned.
On acceptance of bail bonds and personal bonds, the lower court shall transmit photostat copies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record of this appeal.
List the appeal for hearing on its turn.
Order Date :- 29.10.2018 Anand Sri./-