Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3334 of 2021 Appellant :- Govind Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ramanuj Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Despite service of notice on respondent no. 2, none has appeared on his behalf to oppose the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is being proceeded on merits.
2. Heard Sri Ramanuj Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant; 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 15.03.2021, passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Aligarh, in Case Crime No. 121 of 2020, under Sections - 376-D, 342, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T.
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station - Gabhana, District - Aligarh, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 22.07.2020, the appellant is in confinement since 14.09.2020; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest; the appellant has no criminal history; chargesheet has already been submitted yet, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; on prima facie basis, it has been submitted, the appellant has been falsely implicated. The victim girl had attained the age of majority on the date of occurrence. She had formed a consensual relationship with the present appellant. The FIR has been lodged by the brother of the alleged victim on account of his disapproval of the relationship with the appellant. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is stated to be ambivalent. 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 & 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 15.03.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
9. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Govind Chaudhary, 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 :- 17.12.2021 Abhilash