KRIPAL AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNTER affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

(2.) HEARD the Learned Counsel for the Appellants and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the judgment and order dated 16.03.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bareilly in S.T. No. 71 of 2008.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Appellants submitted that according to the facts and circumstances of the case the main complicity was of the Appellant No. 1, Kripal, who is alleged to have committed rape on the prosecutrix. The Appellant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have been convicted only with the aid of Section 120 -B I.P.C. It was further submitted that the Appellants were on bail during the trial and never abused the same. It was also contended that in case the Appellants are not released on bail, the appeal would, in due course, become infructuous as there is No. prospect of the appeal being heard in near future due to heavy dockets. I