Court No. - 4
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4510 of 2014 Appellant :- Jitendra @ Pappu Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Chandra Srivastava,Hemendra Pratap Singh,Madan Singh,Manoj K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Govt.Advocate,Sanjay Kumar
Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Kakkar,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the applicant/appellant in the Court today is kept on record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgement and order dated 18.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), J.P. Nagar (Amroha), in S.T. No. 485 of 2012 (State Vs. Jitendra and others) by which the applicant/appellant has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, two months additional simple imprisonment u/s 302 I.P.C., two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, 20 days additional simple imprisonment u/s 363 I.P.C., five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, 20 days additional simple imprisonment u/s 366-A I.P.C., five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, 20 days additional simple imprisonment u/s 376/511 I.P.C., two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in case of default in payment of fine, 20 days additional simple imprisonment u/s 201 I.P.C. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is absolutely innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted there is no direct evidence on record indicating that the applicant/appellant had committed rape on the victim and thereafter committed her murder. It is further submitted that the last seen evidence of P.W. 2 Rubeena sister of the deceased, P.W. 3 Jaasmeen, the aunt of the deceased, P.W. 4 Mohammad Rafi and P.W.5 Iqbal Ahmad is not sufficient to link the applicant with the offence in question. Moreover, inordinate delay of 10 hours in lodging the F.I.R. is in itself indicative of the fact that the entire prosecution case is false and concocted. Morever, co-accused Parminder and Nihal were acquitted on the basis of same evidence on which the applicant/appellant has been convicted. It is further submitted that since there is no likelihood of this appeal being heard in near future due to heavy backlog of pending criminal appeals before this Court, the applicant/appellant who has no criminal antecedents to his credit and is in jail since 04.07.2012, is entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of this appeal.
i) Smt. Akhtari Bi vs. State of M.P. [2001(2) JIC 163 (SC)]
ii) Takht Singh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2001 (1)) SCC 463
iii) Kamal vs. State of Haryana [ 2004 (13) SCC 526]
iv) Order dated 1.10.2010 passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2356 of 2010 (Kushal Singh vs. State of U.P.)
v) Order dated 4.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal u/s 374 Cr.P.C. No.1502 of 2006 (Raja Ram Yadav vs. State of U.P.)
vi) Order dated 5.10.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal u/s 374 Cr.P.C. No.8242 of 2007 (Dharmendra Singh vs. State of U.P.)
vii) Order dated 21.9.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal u/s 374 Cr. P.C. No.451 of 2006 (Jannat Ali & others vs. State of U.P.).
Per contra Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A.-I opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant/appellant in this case has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life for having kidnapped the minor daughter of the informant Abdul Sattar and committing her murder after raping. The medical evidence on record fully corroborates the prosecution case and the time of the occurrence. All the four witnesses of fact examined by the prosecution during the trial have deposed in unison that on the date of the incident at about 10 A.M., they had seen the deceased along with the applicant/appellant and, thereafter, she was not seen alive. In view of the above and considering the gravity of the offence, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail during the pendency of this appeal.
From a perusal of the aforementioned judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and by the Division Benches of this Court, it is apparent that the consistent view is that where the accused has spent substantial period of sentence in jail and there is little likelihood of the appeal being heard or the trial being concluded, as the case may be, the accused may be enlarged on bail. In all the above cases different periods have been held to be substantial period ranging from three years and three months to eight years.
Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that in the present case the appellant - applicant Jitendra @ Pappu has already spent almost 6 years in jail and we have been informed that there is little hope of the present appeal being heard at an early date or in near future. Accordingly following the consistent view of the Apex Court and this Court the accused appellant- applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Let the accused appellant - applicant Jitendra @ Pappu convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2014 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), J.P. Nagar (Amroha) in Sessions Trial No. 485 of 2012 (State Vs. Jitendra and others) be admitted on bail during the pendency of appeal subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned provided that the appellant-applicant deposits 50% fine awarded by the impugned judgment.
Order Date :- 31.7.2018/Praveen