Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7221 of 2018 Appellant :- Amarnath Rajbhar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Bhushan Tiwari,Navin Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ghandikota Sri Devi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14A (2) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'Act, 1989') has been filed on behalf of the appellant, challenging the order dated 15.09.2018 passed by Learned Additional Session Judge-IInd/ Special Judge SC/ST (PA) Act Ghazipur in Bail Application No. 144 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 109 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (V) K of SC/ST Act, Police Station Mardah, District Ghazipur, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that father of the victim lodged the FIR on 15.07.2018 for the incident alleged to have taken place on 11.07.2018, wherein it was alleged that minor daughter of the informant has gone to school on 11.07.2018 at 8.00 a.m. and she did not return home in the evening, then the informant made search for his daughter here and there so also in the college, then it has come to his knowledge that his daughter did not go to school on that day, then the informant suspected that his daughter was enticed away by 7 accused including the accused/appellant. It was further contended that the statement of the victim was recorded under section 161 Cr. P.C. in which she has clearly stated that she has gone with the co-accused Sudhir Rajbhar and nobody has enticed her; thus, from the statement of the victim, it is clear that victim had gone with the company of co- accused Sudhir Rajbhar out of her own free will, without any threat or coercion; that victim was medically examined on 26.07.2018 and the age of the victim was found to be about 18 years; that the statement of victim under section 164 Cr. P.C. was recorded on 26.07.2018 in which also she has not supported the prosecution case and categorically stated that she is in love affair with co-acused Sudhir Rajbhar since last one year prior to the occurrence and acordingly, she has gone with co-accused and she has not assigned any role to the present accused/appellant; that the accused/appellant has been falsely implicated in this case with malafide intention; that the accused/appellant has no criminal history; that accused/appellant is in jail since 31.07.2018.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. It is further submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court, hence, the accused/appellant is not entitled for bail.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, and on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without adverting to the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the bail rejection order dated 15.09.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. The aforesaid impugned order is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant Amarnath Rajbhar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with following conditions:-
1. The appellant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.
2. He will not tamper with the witnesses.
3. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.
It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 T.S.