Shri Kant Tripathi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned A.G.A. and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 8.2.2010, rendered by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Kaushambi, in session trial No. 3/2008, State v. Sukha Lal and Anr.
(2.) ADMIT . Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the maximum sentence imposed on the Appellant is of seven years rigorous imprisonment and he has already served out a substantial portion (more than four years) of the substantive sentence. It was next submitted that the FIR was lodged after about three days of the occurrence without any proper explanation of delay and it is alleged that the Appellant's wife assisted the Appellant in committing rape on the victim. It was highly improbable that Appellant's wife abetted in the crime of rape. It was next submitted that a litigation was going on between the Appellant and one Jai Prakash Pandit, who got concocted the present case against the Appellant. The doctor, who medically examined the girl, did not find any symptom of rape. More so, the prosecutrix was found aged about 14 -17 years and could be major on the date of occurrence. In case the Appellant is not released on bail, the appeal would, in due course, become infructuous as there is no hope of an early hearing of the appeal due to heavy dockets.
(3.) IN my opinion, prima facie, the aforesaid submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant have substance, therefore, it is just and expedient to exercise the discretion in favour of the Appellant.;