Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4611 of 2021 Appellant :- Arvind Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sarvesh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Sarvesh, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Ashwini Prakash Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants and; Sri Kshitij Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of learned counsel for respondent no.2.
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 appellants with the prayer to set aside the order dated 22.9.2021, passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/Additional Session Judge, Banda in Case Crime No. 198 of 2021, under Sections - 307, 323, 504 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)V, 3(2)Va, 3(1)R of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Bisanda, District - Banda, whereby bail application of the appellants have been rejected.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits, against the FIR lodged on 22.7.2021, the appellants are in confinement since then; the appellants claim to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case they are not shown to have unduly evaded arrest; the appellants have no criminal history; chargesheet 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, a petty quarrel had erupted between the parties. Referring to the injury report, it has been submitted, simple injuries have been recorded therein and none of them are life threatening. Also, it has been submitted, the allegations of violation under 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 appellants, 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 appellants be enlarged on bail at this stage.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.9.2021 rejecting the bail of the appellants is set aside.
9. Let the accused-appellants, namely, Arvind Kumar, Jai Prakash @ Bawali and Sushil Patel involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that appellants shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 Prakhar