Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2900 of 2020 Appellant :- Harishankar Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Abrar Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Mishra,Veerendra Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State 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 with the prayer to set aside the order dated 03.09.2020 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Allahabad passed in Bail Application No.583 of 2020 arising out of case crime no.152 of 2019, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)Va SC/ST Act, Police Station Lalapur, District Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to monetary dispute. He added that the applicant assured the informant to availing him a job and for which he obtained some money i.e. Rs.80,000/-. The applicant has not cheated any person nor has breached any criminal breach of trust. Now, the applicant is ready though under protest to hand over requisite amount to the informant provided he is set free for the time being so that he may arrange the money and pay back to the informant.
The learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but conceded that if applicant is ready to deposit the requisite/balance amount in question, then Court may consider his bail application sympathetically.
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 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 3.9.2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the applicant- Harishankar Yadav- involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned along with an undertaking that he will deposit requisite amount in question/balance within a period of three months next after his release by way of demand draft to the victim/informant of this case, as the case may be before the C.J.M. Allahabad who shall after due identification of the victim/informant hand over the same to him.
It is made clear that the proof of compliance shall be presented/moved before the C.J.M. Allahabad by the applicant himself within the aforesaid period (three months) and in case, applicant does not move the proof of compliance before the C.J.M. Allahabad within the time stipulated as above, C.J.M. Allahabad shall straight- way cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 28.10.2021 Raj