HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. – 15
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. – 59 of 2018
Appellant :- Dhruv Nath
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Prakash Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
(In Ref:- C.M. Application No.3189of 2018)
Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. appearing for the State, pertaining to the prayer of bail of the appellants.
This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) SectionCr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 29.08.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Court No.1, Ambedkarnagar in S.S.T. No.50 of 2015, arising out of Case Crime No.89 of 2015, under Sectionsections 377, Section506 IPC., and POCSO Act, Police Station Ahirauli, District Ambedkar Nagar, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sectionsection 377 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, for a period of ten years with fine of Rs.10000/-; in default to undergo three months imprisonment, under Sectionsection 506 (II) IPC for a period of one year R.I. with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default, further to undergo imprisonment for one month.
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that in the medical examination of the victim no evidence of the alleged offence has been found. The appellant has been falsely implicated due to enmity. The appellant is in jail since 29.08.2017. There is no other criminal case registered against the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant while pressing the prayer of bail submits that, the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the Court below by wrongly appreciating the evidence available on record, while prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
It is further submitted that, during the course of trial, the appellant was on bail and there is no instance of misusing the liberty so granted by this Court.
It is further submitted that there is no likelihood that the appellant after release on bail may flee from the process of law or will misuse the liberty of bail, so granted by this Court.
Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer for bail of the appellant, on the ground that, the appellant has committed a serious and heinous offence and has been rightly convicted by the Court below, and the appellant is not entitled for bail. However, he could not confront the factual submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant.
Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, without commenting upon merits, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.
Let the appellant Dhruv Nath, involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-
(i) Half of the fine shall remain stayed out of the fine imposed by the trial Court, and rest of the half fine shall be deposited within 30 days from the actual release of the appellant, if the same has not already been deposited.
(ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the disposal of appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournment.
(iii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
Order Date :- 8.8.2019