Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5390 of 2021 Appellant :- Anuj Tiwari Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Raghuvansh Misra,Ashvani Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Raghuvansh Misra, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Om Prakash Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the informant; Sri Janardan Prakash, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. 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 18.10.2021, passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bhadohi, in Case Crime No. 143 of 2021, under Sections - 302, 504, 506, 120-B/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station - Suriyawan, District - Bhadohi, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 25.07.2021, the appellant is in confinement since 28.07.2021; 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; chargesheet has already been submitted yet, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; on prima facie basis, it has been submitted, the appellant is not named in the FIR. There is no credible material to proceed against the appellant. Only because the main accused Ramesh Kumar Gautam has named the appellant in his confessional statement during police custody, the appellant has been arrested. Ramesh Kumar Gautam was an employee of the present appellant and therefore, the telephonic conversation has been falsely attributed to the occurrence. In any case, the CDR has not established either the identity of the present appellant nor there is any transcript of the telephonic conversation or other material to implicate the present appellant in the allegation of criminal conspiracy. Also, it has been submitted, the allegations of violation of SC/ST Act are general and made to lend colour to the story.
4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
5. 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.
6. Without drawing any inference as to facts, in view of the above noted facts & 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.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.10.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
8. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Anuj Tiwari, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two heavy 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.
9. It is made clear that, in the event of any attempt being made by the appellant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence, the informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material, that application if filed, may be taken up on priority.
Order Date :- 24.12.2021 Abhilash