Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2222 of 2020 Appellant :- Anurag Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sameer Jain,Suresh Chandra Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 5.8.2020 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Varanasi in Bail Application No.1358 of 2020 arising out of case crime no.261 of 2020, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, P.S. Cantt, District Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He added that the applicant happens to be son of a person who is posted U.P. Board, Varanasi and he assured the informant to avaing him a job and for which he obtained some money i.e. Rs.6,50,000/-. The applicant has not cheated any person nor has breached any criminal breach of trust. However, the applicant has already paid Rs.49,000/- by depositing it in the account of the informant and informant and the applicant were maintaining good relation between them, however, some misunderstanding arose and because of that this dispute has been arose. Now, the applicant is ready though under protest to hand over Rs.6,50,000/- minus Rs. 49,000/- to the informant provided he is set free for the time being so that he may arrange the money and pay back to the informant.
The learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but conceded that if applicant is ready to deposit the requisite/balance amount in question, then Court may consider his bail application sympathetically.
I have considered the rival submissions so made and having gone through the entire record including the order by which, bail application of the appellant-applicant has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal.
Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the complainant/ State so as to justify and sustain the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application of the appellant.
Thus, in view of the above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the evidence, complicity of accused, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 5.8.2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the applicant- Anurag Pandey- involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned along with an undertaking that he will deposit requisite amount in question/balance within a period of three months next after his release by way of demand draft to the victim/informant of this case, as the case may be before the C.J.M. Varanasi who shall after due identification of the victim/informant hand over the same to him.
It is made clear that the proof of compliance shall be presented/moved before the C.J.M. Varanasi by the applicant himself within the aforesaid period (three months) and in case, applicant does not move the proof of compliance before the C.J.M. Varanasi within the time stipulated as above, C.J.M. Varanasi shall straight- way cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 28.10.2021 Raj