Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, learned counsel for the informant 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 28.07.2020 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (P.A. Act), court no.2, Etawah in Case No.221 of 2020, under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, P.S. Edkil, District Etawah.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence. The story of the prosecution has been said to be false and baseless. He added that on the basis of inconsistent and vacillating statement of the brother and father of the deceased Saurabh bail has been sought by contending that infact the accused- appellant is not named in the FIR and it so happened that some unknown persons committed that crime and the deceased was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead thereafter inquest was prepared as unknown and on the very next day the brother of the deceased contacted the police authorities and and identified the dead body on the basis of some mark on the body say- hand of the deceased. Thereafter it so happened that preclude the situation and in order to falsely implicate the appellant, the police recorded the statement of father of the victim and father of the first informer that he saw the accused taking away the deceased on the fateful day and that statement was belatedly recorded on 25th June 2020. Nothing incriminating involving commission of the crime has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. The country-made gun which is recovered from the possession of the appellant cannot be said to have been used in causing any injury to the incident in question nor is there any ballistic report regarding it being used in any manner in the commission of the crime. He further submits that in case, he is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding and misusing the liberty of bail. It has been assured on behalf of the appellant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make available before the court whenever required. The appellant is languishing in jail since 26.06.2020. The appellant has no criminal history.
Also heard the learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for the informant.
I have considered the rival submissions so made and having gone through the entire record as well as 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 appellants have made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.07.2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant are set aside.
Let the accused-appellant, namely, Hemant Alias Anshu Yadav 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 appellant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.
However, this order will not prejudice the trial court while deciding the case on merit.
Order Date :- 8.4.2021 Raj