Counter affidavit filed on behalf of complainant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsels for the parties 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- Banti Pali with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 16.07.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bareilly in Bail Application No. 2463 of 2019 in Case Crime No. 15 of 2019, under Sections 376d, 323, 342, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)V SC/ST Act, P.S.- Sirauli, District- Bareilly.
As per the allegations made in the first information report, it was on 20.02.2019 at around 8.00 p.m. in the night while the victim/ informant had gone to answer the nature's call, the applicant and other accused persons have taken her to their residence at the point of country made pistol and where they physically assaulted her. She has claimed her age to be 14 years in the first information report.
It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant-applicant that the appellant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated for ulterior motives. It is also argued that applicant is not at all involved in the matter and he has been dragged in the controversy due to village politics. It is submitted that, both in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. the role of sexual assault has been assigned only against Pappu Pali and therefore, his case is quite distinguishable. It is further argued that the medical examination report of the victim also shows her age to be 19 years. It is further argued by the learned counsel that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit and further that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no chance of early conclusion of the trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 27.03.2019.
Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this appeal on the ground that even after the FIR has been lodged, the accused persons have not stopped and are permanently threatening and forcing her for a compromise. It is submitted that the mother of informant had lodged another FIR only against Pappu Pali on 25.03.2019 under Sections 307, 504 IPC and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Gha) and 3(2)V SC/ST Act.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has also opposed the appeal but could not disputing the fact that there is no criminal history to the credit of present applicant, inasmuch as, the main role has been assigned to Pappu Pali and that the subsequent FIR has also been lodged against Pappu Pali. Thus it is not disputed that the case of Pappu Pali is quite distinguishable on facts from that of the case of present applicant.
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 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 16.07.2019 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the above named accused-appellant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that applicant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official is further directed to verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 3.2.2021 IrfanUddin