The Allahabad High Court has allowed the bail application of a woman convicted for kidnapping in the case of a gang rape of a minor in Pilkhua police station of Hapur.
A single-judge bench of Justice Samit Gopal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused woman.
The criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 05.07.2022 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Hapur, in Case under Sections 363, 376-D, 328 IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Pilkhua, District Hapur whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 363 IPC for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs 5,000 and in default of payment of fine, three months additional imprisonment and Section 328 IPC for a period of four years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs 10,000 and in default of payment of fine, six months additional imprisonment.
The counsel for the appellant argued that the maximum sentence awarded to the appellant is four years rigorous imprisonment with fine and default clause and conviction and sentence in another section.
It is argued that the trial court has ordered all the sentences to run concurrently. The trial court has ordered the benefit of set off under Section 428 CrPC to the appellant. The appellant was on bail during the pendency of trial. She is a lady.
It is further argued that charges against the appellant were framed under the convicted sections whereas charges against co-accused Afzal and Firoz were framed under Sections 363, 376-D, 328 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act.
It is also argued that although as per the prosecution case, the age of the prosecutrix was 16 years of which the after medical examination, the CMO concerned has opined her age to be about 17 years and by giving variation of two years, she would be a major. The appellant has no criminal history as stated in the affidavit in support of application for suspension of sentence. There are no chances of early hearing of the appeal in the near future.
The Counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.
“After having heard the counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the conviction of the appellant is four years. The appellant was on bail during the pendency of trial. She is a lady.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of this, the Court is of the view that the appellant may be released on bail,” the Court observed.
The Court ordered,
Let the appellant be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
The application for suspension of sentence is allowed.
It is made clear that the fine as imposed upon the appellant is not stayed.