Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3429 of 2021 Appellant :- Danish Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shad Khan,Amit Daga,Mumtaz Ali Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Service report indicates that the notice could not be served on the informant as she was not found residing at the address disclosed in the FIR. Accordingly, service is deemed sufficient.
2. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
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 appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 8.4.2021, passed by Special Judge, S.C/S.T. (P.A.) Act, Bulandshahr, in Case Crime No. 66 of 2021, under Sections - 376D, 506 IPC, Section 67 I.T. Act and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Bulandshahr, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 21.1.2021, the appellant is in confinement since 23.3.2021; 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, no corroborative material was found in support of the FIR allegations. No recovery of any video recording or objectionable photograph, had been made from the appellant or otherwise. In any case, the victim has changed her stand many times during investigation as has rendered the prosecution story incredible. Also, it has been submitted, the allegations of violation of 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 appellant, 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 appellant be enlarged on bail at this stage.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 8.4.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
9. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Danish, 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