Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5651 of 2021 Appellant :- Amrendra Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Though service report is awaited, upon query made, learned AGA states, written instructions have been received, amongst other, as to service effected on respondent no.2 on 3.12.2021 of the present bail application. None has appeared on her behalf. Accordingly the matter has been proceeded on merits.
2. Heard Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashwini Prakash Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 9.11.2021, passed by Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Lalitpur, in Case Crime No. 741 of 2021, under Sections - 452, 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Kotwali Lalitpur, District - Lalitpur, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 5.9.2021, the appellant is in confinement since 6.9.2021; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation; the appellant has no criminal history; charge-sheet has already been submitted yet there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; on prima facie basis, for the purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted, false accusation has been made in the FIR for collateral purpose. No such occurrence took place. The FIR allegations are inherently improbable, inasmuch as, it has been alleged, the applicant committed rape on the victim (a married lady) at her residence while her husband was sleeping just outside the house. No cry for help was raised and the FIR was lodged with a delay of two days. In her statement recorded during investigation, she had taken inconsistent stand. Also, it has been submitted, the allegations of violation of SC/ST Act are general and made to lend colour to the story.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, at present, the order passed by the learned court below rejecting the bail application filed by the appellant, cannot be sustained.
7. Without drawing any inference as to facts, in view of the above noted facts and submissions and having regard to the status of the evidence, as has been shown to exist on record, let the appellant be enlarged on bail at this stage.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 9.11.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
9. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Amrendra Singh, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that appellant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.
Order Date :- 23.12.2021 Prakhar