Anil Kumar Singh vs State of U.P.

Raj Mani Chauhan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for appellant on the point of admission and perused the impugned judgment and order.

The appellant-Anil Kumar Singh has filed this Criminal Appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.8.2010 passed by the learned Special Additional Sessions Judge, Kheri in Sessions Trial No. 41 of 2006 (State v. Baldeo Singh @ Jitendra Singh and Anr.) arising out of case Crime No. 864 of 2004, under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 IPC, P.S. Gola, District Kheri whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held the accused-appellant guilty and consequently convicted and sentenced him as under:

Under Section 363 IPC - four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment one month''s more simple imprisonment.

Under Section 366 IPC - four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment one month''s more simple imprisonment.

Under Section 506 IPC - three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment 15 days'' more simple imprisonment.

The maximum sentence awarded by the Trial Court is four years under each Section 363/366 IPC with default stipulation thereof.

The appeal involves the arguable point of law.

Admit.

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. on the prayer of bail and perused the impugned judgment and order.

The submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that the only evidence against the accused-appellant is that he had cooperated the main accused in taking away the prosecutrix. No other role has been assigned to him. In fact, the prosecutirx was a major girl and she had affairs with the main accused-Baldeo Singh @ Jitendra Singh. She herself had remained with him for a period of four years in Delhi. The prosecutrix herself was the consenting party. The accused-appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to him. Therefore, he deserves to be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of bail.

Considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. Keeping in view the facts of the case as well as the fact the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to him, therefore, without prejudice to the merit of the appeal, the appellant may be released on bail during the pendency of appeal.

Let the appellant-Anil Kumar Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid Sessions Trial number on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur.

However, the fine is not stayed. The appellant is directed to deposit the amount of fine within a period of 30 days from the date of his release, failing which this order of bail stands cancelled.