Heard learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This appeal has been preferred under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against impugned order dated 04.02.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Unnao, in Bail Application No. 86 of 2020 (Amar Verma alia Golu Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.191 of 2019, under Sections 302/201 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Makhi, District Unnao. Bail Application No. 86 of 2020 of the applicant has been rejected vide impugned order dated 04.02.2020.
Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the aforesaid crime. Although the appellant having love affairs with the deceased but there appears no motive to commit the murder of the deceased. It is further submitted that it is a case of honour killing and the appellant has been wrongly roped in this case as the demand of illegal gratification was not fulfilled by the father of the appellant to the police officer. Next submission is that perusal of postmortem report shows that no incised wound was was found on the body of the deceased therefore the police has made false recovery of knife and bloodstained clothes of the appellant. The appellant is in jail since 1.8.2019.
Learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the offence is serious in nature. On perusal of the call details report, the presence of the appellant is found at the place of occurrence. It is also submitted that on the pointing out of the appellant, knife, bloodstained clothes of the appellant and one mobile phone without SIM of deceased were recovered by police during investigation. There is sufficient evidence available against the appellant. Learned A.G.A. has next submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, hence the applicant is not entitled for bail and the appeal/bail application is liable to be rejected.
After hearing the rival submissions of the parties, and perused the record, without expressing any opinion on merits, I fine that it is not a fit case for grant of bail of appellant/applicant.
The appeal is dismissed and bail application is rejected.
However, the trial court is hereby directed to expedite the trial and make an endeavour to conclude the same, within one year, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 Virendra