Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 857 of 2019 Appellant :- Anuj Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohit Kumar Singh,Sujata Choudhary Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Manoj Vashisth
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Counter and supplementary affidavits filed today, are taken on record.
Heard Ms. Sujata Choudhay, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and Sri Manoj Vashisth, learned counsel for the complainant, 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 4.1.2019 passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Meerut in Bail Application No.6561 of 2018 ( Anuj Yadav son of Atarpal vs. State of U.P.) in Criminal Case No. 128 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 238 of 2018, under Sections 452, 354-B, 307, 352, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3/2/5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Inchauli, District- Meerut whereby bail application of appellant was rejected.
According to the prosecution case F.I.R. was lodged against four accused persons, namely Avnish, Anuj Yadav, Rahul Yadav and Atarpal on 16.4.2018 after one day of the incident alleging that on 15.4.2018 after entering into the house of the complainant they assaulted her daughter Neha with intent to outrage her modesty and she received one injury on her head but the injury was found simple in nature. According to X-ray report and medical report, no fracture was found.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 15.4.2018. Appellant is having criminal history, which has been properly explained. He has further submitted that he has been falsely implicated. Lastly he submitted that the co-accused Atarpal has been enlarged on bail by the another Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.8.2018 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3983 of 2018. Hence, the present appellant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
Learned AGA and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid fact as argued by learned counsel for the appellant.
For the foregoing discussions, facts of the case, nature of allegation and period of custody, gravity of offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 4.1.2019 rejecting bail of appellant is hereby set aside.
Let appellant Anuj Yadav involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Mini