Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2862 of 2021 Appellant :- Avi@ Raniya @Haribind Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bharat Bhushan Dubey
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
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 26.5.2021, passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Court no.2, Etawah, in Case Crime No. 605 of 2021, under Sections - 363, 366, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Bharthana, District - Etawah, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 17.11.2020, the appellant is in confinement since 29.12.2020; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation; 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, false accusations have been made in the FIR. In any case, the alleged victim girl has been recovered on the same day. In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she did not make any allegation of rape. 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 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.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.5.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
8. Considering the fact that the appellant has remained confined for almost one year, let the accused-appellant, namely, Avi @ Raniya @ Harivind, 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 :- 22.12.2021 Prakhar Digitally signed by SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH Date: 2021.12.23 09:57:31 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad