Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3840 of 2021 Appellant :- Anand Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sudhindra Kumar Singh,Manoj Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Despite service of notice on respondent no. 2, none has appeared on his behalf to oppose the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is being proceeded on merits.
2. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Janardhan Prakash, 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 1.9.2021, passed by Special Judge (S.C/S.T. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in Case Crime No. 273 of 2021, under Sections - 147, 307, 504, 506, 120B IPC and 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Ghoorpur, District - Prayagraj, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 19.7.2021, the appellant is in confinement since 21.7.2021; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest; the appellant has no criminal history; though investigation is pending yet at present no justifiable cause has been shown to continue the detention of the applicant for an indefinite period; on prima facie basis, for the purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted, only role ascribed to the appellant is of having called the informant from his residence. As to the assault, no role has been assigned to the appellant. That role is assigned to the other co-accused with which the appellant has no concern. 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 1.9.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
9. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Anand Yadav, 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 :- 22.12.2021 Prakhar