[ad_1]
Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/41/2017 on 18 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Office Notes, reports, orders
SL. or proceedings or directions
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No and Registrar's order with
Signatures
18.06.2025 Second Bail Application No. IA/695 of 2025
In
CRLA No. 41 of 2017
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
Mr. Sandeep Adhikar, legal aid counsel for
the appellant.
Mr. K.S. Bora, Deputy Advocate General with
Mr. J.P. Kandpal, Brief Holder for the State.
2. This Appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC has
been preferred against the judgment and order
dated 03.10.2016, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO), Rudrapur,
District Udham Singh Nagar in Special Sessions
Trial No. 35 of 2016, whereby appellant was
convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 363, 366, 376(2), 328, 307 IPC and Section
6 of POCSO Act. Maximum jail sentence awarded
to appellant is to undergo 15 years rigorous
imprisonment for the offence punishable under
Section 376(2) IPC.
3. First bail application was dismissed as not
pressed on 29.03.2022. Now, second bail
application has been filed on behalf of appellant
on the ground that as against sentence of 15 years,
appellant has already undergone actual sentence
of more than 9 years, and total sentence
undergone, including remission, is more than 11
years. He further submits that there is no
allegation of misconduct in jail against the
appellant and appeal is not likely to be heard in
near future. Thus, he submits that under the
prevalent practice, when a convict has served
more than half of a fixed term sentence, he is
entitled for bail.
4. Learned State Counsel, on instructions,
concedes that appellant has undergone actual
incarceration of more than 9 years and, with
remission, the period of incarceration undergone
by appellant is more than 11 years.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, particularly the fact that appellant has
already undergone more than half of sentence
imposed upon him by the Trial Court, a case for
bail at this stage is made out.
6. Accordingly, Bail Application is allowed.
7. Let the appellant -Raju be released on bail
during the pendency of this Appeal on his
executing a personal bond and furnishing two
reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the Court concerned.
8. List this Appeal in due course for final
hearing.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
18.06.2025
Mahinder/
[ad_2]
Source link