Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 864 of 2021 Appellant :- Anil Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Raja Ullah Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Re: Criminal Misc. Exemption Application No. 9 of 2021
1. In absence of any objection to the correctness of the true copy of the FIR annexed, exemption granted.
2. Defect stands cured. Application is allowed.
Order on Appeal
3. Though service report is awaited, upon query made, learned AGA states, written instructions has been received, amongst other, as to service effected on respondent no. 3on 7.11.2021 of the present bail application. None has appeared on his behalf. Accordingly the matter has been proceeded on merits.
4. Heard Sri Raza Ullah Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Janardhan Prakash, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
5. 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 11.10.2021, passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Court no.2, Shahjahanpur, in Case Crime No. 402 of 2020, under Sections - 147, 148, 149, 186, 307, 332, 353, 395, 397, 504, 506 and 333 I.P.C., Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Nigohi, District - Shahjahanpur, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
6. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 2.10.2020, the appellant is in confinement since then; 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; charge-sheet has already been submitted yet, trial has not commenced. Therefore, 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, the appellant has been falsely implicated in the dispute involving the landlords and the state authorities as also electricity distribution company. Merely because he was present at the time of occurrence and was a by- stander, he has been falsely implicated by the police authorities. Reference has been made to the fact that the main persons, with whom disputes had arisen, have not been named in the charge-sheet. Also, it has been submitted, the allegations of violation of SC/ST Act are general and made to lend colour to the story.
7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.10.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
11. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Anil, 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 :- 24.12.2021 Prakhar