Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1862 of 2021 Appellant :- Babalu @ Rajeev Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajendra Kumar Dubey,Rajneesh Kumar Upadhyay,Santosh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST Act as Amended, has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 04.01.2021, passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Baghpat in Case Crime No. 393 of 2020, under Sections - 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, 1989, Police Station - Khekada, District - Baghpat.
Factual contention is that the F.I.R. was lodged on 9.10.2020 and it was overall alleged that the deceased had gone to work in his field, but he did not return home. Therefore, a search was made and the dead body was found in bad condition in the sugarcane field with injuries on face and head. Now, on 15.10.2020, the statement of two witnesses were recorded, wherein some suspicion was expressed that the appellant might have committed the offence because the appellant was having some affair with the daughter-in-law of the deceased. A scissor was allegedly recovered from the possession of the appellant, however, that too is without any independent witness. Except that, there is no concrete and direct link evidence appearing against the applicant to connect him with the alleged offence. In case, the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 19.10.2020.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
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 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 04.01.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant - Babalu @ R ajeev involved in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences 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 :- 29.10.2021 S Rawat