High Court

1. Heard Mr. A.C.Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant/appellant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 11.02.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Court No.2, Meerut in Session Trial No.64 of 2015 (State Vs. Salman and others) arising out of Case Crime No.517 of 2015, under Sections 354-A, 354-D IPC read with under Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Brahmpuri, District-Meerut, applicant-appellant has approached this Court by means of aforementioned Criminal Appeal.

4. By means of the impugned judgement and order referred to above, applicant appellant has been convicted under Section 354-A IPC and consequently sentenced to 2 years and six months rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in case of default, he is to undergo one month additional rigorous imprisonment, under Section 354-D I.P.C., and consequently sentenced to 2 years and six months rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in case of default, he is to undergo one month additional rigorous imprisonment. The impugned judgement and order further records that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

5. Applicant/appellant, who was on bail during the pendency of trial. He was however taken into custody in compliance of aforesaid judgment and order dated 11.02.2025. Consequently, applicant/appellant filed an application for grant of interim bail as provided under Section 389(3) Cr. P. C. before court below. The said application was allowed by Court below vide order dated

11.02.2025. However, interim bail granted applicant/appellant by court below is for a limited period. 5A. In view of above, applicant/appellant has filed aforementioned application seeking suspension of sentence as well as enlargement on bail during the pendency of present criminal appeal.

6. Learned counsel for applicant-appellant contends that, though, applicant/appellant is a convicted accused, yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. Applicant/appellant was on bail during the pendency of trial but he did not misuse the liberty of bail. It is, then, contended that applicant/appellant has been convicted by court below, but he has been awarded definite sentence of punishment, which is two years and six months. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Atul Alias Ashutosh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2024) 3 SCC 663, it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant/appellant that the Apex Court has itself observed that where definite sentence punishment has been awarded to the accused by the Trial Court and there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in near future, then in such an eventuality, an accused should be enlarged on bail by the High Court. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that in view of the heavy pendency of the criminal appeals before this Court and also the shortage of Hon'ble Judges in this Court, there is no likelihood of present appeal being heard in near future. He has then referred to the impugned judgment and pointed out the perversity in the same. Even otherwise, applicant-appellant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one.

7. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant/appellant contends that applicant/appellant is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of present appeal. In case, the applicant-appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate in the hearing of present appeal.

8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party- 1 has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant-appellant is a named and convicted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. According to the learned A.G.A., interest of justice shall better be served in case, the appeal itself is finally heard by fixing a short date rather than enlarging the applicant appellant on bail.

9. Applicant/appellant is guilty of committing an offence which is not only illegal but also immoral inasmuch as applicant/appellant has dislodged the modesty of a woman. On the above premise, the learned AGA, thus, submits that no equity is in favour of the applicant/appellant, therefore, the prayer for bail made by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant is liable to be refused. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for appellant-applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant-appellant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made, this Court finds that, though, applicant/appellant is a convicted accused, but he is liable to be enlarged on bail, inasmuch as, applicant/appellant has been convicted and sentenced for a definite period of 2 years and six months. The Apex Court in the case of Atul alias Ashutosh (Supra), has itself observed that when an accused has been convicted and sentenced with a definite period of punishment and there are no chances of the appeal being heard in near future, the High Court must enlarge such an accused on bail during the pendency of appeal. On account of heavy pendency of Criminal Appeals and also an acute shortage of Hon'ble Judges in this Court, there is no likelihood of the present appeal being heard in near future. The applicant/appellant was on bail during the pendency of trial but the learned AGA could not point out any such material from the record that applicant/appellant misused the liberty of bail during the pendency of trial. Therefore, considering the above and also the clean antecedents of applicant-appellant but irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. for State in opposition to the prayer for bail and without making any comments on the merits of the appeal, applicant-appellant has made out a case for bail.

11. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is liable to be allowed.

12. It is, accordingly, allowed.

13.The interim bail granted to applicant/appellant by court below is, hereby, made absolute.

14. It is, however, provided that the amount of fine awarded by Court below shall be deposited by applicant appellant with the Court below within a period of one month from today, failing which, the bail granted to applicant-appellant under this order shall stand automatically cancelled. Applicant appellant shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded by Court below. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Ashutosh

1. Heard Mr. A.C.Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant/appellant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 11.02.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (POCSO Act), Court No.2, Meerut in Session Trial No.64 of 2015 (State Vs. Salman and others) arising out of Case Crime No.517 of 2015, under Sections 354-A, 354-D IPC read with under Section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Brahmpuri, District-Meerut, applicant-appellant has approached this Court by means of aforementioned Criminal Appeal.

4. By means of the impugned judgement and order referred to above, applicant appellant has been convicted under Section 354-A IPC and consequently sentenced to 2 years and six months rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in case of default, he is to undergo one month additional rigorous imprisonment, under Section 354-D I.P.C., and consequently sentenced to 2 years and six months rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in case of default, he is to undergo one month additional rigorous imprisonment. The impugned judgement and order further records that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

5. Applicant/appellant, who was on bail during the pendency of trial. He was however taken into custody in compliance of aforesaid judgment and order dated 11.02.2025. Consequently, applicant/appellant filed an application for grant of interim bail as provided under Section 389(3) Cr. P. C. before court below. The said application was allowed by Court below vide order dated

11.02.2025. However, interim bail granted applicant/appellant by court below is for a limited period. 5A. In view of above, applicant/appellant has filed aforementioned application seeking suspension of sentence as well as enlargement on bail during the pendency of present criminal appeal.

6. Learned counsel for applicant-appellant contends that, though, applicant/appellant is a convicted accused, yet he is liable to be enlarged on bail. Applicant/appellant was on bail during the pendency of trial but he did not misuse the liberty of bail. It is, then, contended that applicant/appellant has been convicted by court below, but he has been awarded definite sentence of punishment, which is two years and six months. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Atul Alias Ashutosh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2024) 3 SCC 663, it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant/appellant that the Apex Court has itself observed that where definite sentence punishment has been awarded to the accused by the Trial Court and there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard in near future, then in such an eventuality, an accused should be enlarged on bail by the High Court. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant that in view of the heavy pendency of the criminal appeals before this Court and also the shortage of Hon'ble Judges in this Court, there is no likelihood of present appeal being heard in near future. He has then referred to the impugned judgment and pointed out the perversity in the same. Even otherwise, applicant-appellant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one.

7. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant/appellant contends that applicant/appellant is liable to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of present appeal. In case, the applicant-appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate in the hearing of present appeal.

8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-opposite party- 1 has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant-appellant is a named and convicted accused, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. According to the learned A.G.A., interest of justice shall better be served in case, the appeal itself is finally heard by fixing a short date rather than enlarging the applicant appellant on bail.

9. Applicant/appellant is guilty of committing an offence which is not only illegal but also immoral inasmuch as applicant/appellant has dislodged the modesty of a woman. On the above premise, the learned AGA, thus, submits that no equity is in favour of the applicant/appellant, therefore, the prayer for bail made by the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant is liable to be refused. However, the learned A.G.A. could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for appellant-applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant-appellant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made, this Court finds that, though, applicant/appellant is a convicted accused, but he is liable to be enlarged on bail, inasmuch as, applicant/appellant has been convicted and sentenced for a definite period of 2 years and six months. The Apex Court in the case of Atul alias Ashutosh (Supra), has itself observed that when an accused has been convicted and sentenced with a definite period of punishment and there are no chances of the appeal being heard in near future, the High Court must enlarge such an accused on bail during the pendency of appeal. On account of heavy pendency of Criminal Appeals and also an acute shortage of Hon'ble Judges in this Court, there is no likelihood of the present appeal being heard in near future. The applicant/appellant was on bail during the pendency of trial but the learned AGA could not point out any such material from the record that applicant/appellant misused the liberty of bail during the pendency of trial. Therefore, considering the above and also the clean antecedents of applicant-appellant but irrespective of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. for State in opposition to the prayer for bail and without making any comments on the merits of the appeal, applicant-appellant has made out a case for bail.

11. Accordingly, the application for suspension of sentence is liable to be allowed.

12. It is, accordingly, allowed.

13.The interim bail granted to applicant/appellant by court below is, hereby, made absolute.

14. It is, however, provided that the amount of fine awarded by Court below shall be deposited by applicant appellant with the Court below within a period of one month from today, failing which, the bail granted to applicant-appellant under this order shall stand automatically cancelled. Applicant appellant shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded by Court below. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Ashutosh