Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 533 of 2019 Appellant :- Hemraj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arimardan Yadav,Jadu Nandan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ghandikota Sri Devi,J.
Learned A.G.A. Submits that notice upon the respondent no.2 has been served on 28.01.2019.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. However, none appears on behalf of the private respondent no.2.
This criminal appeal under Section 14A (2) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'Act, 1989') has been filed on behalf of the appellant, challenging the order dated 01.01.2019 passed by Learned Additional Session Judge IInd/ Special Judge, SC & ST Act Kannauj, in Bail Application No. 34 of 2018, arising out of Case Crime No. 1100 of 2018, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (da)) SC/ST Act, Police Station Chhibramau, District Kannauj, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that the alleged incident is said to have been taken place on 02.12.2015, but the FIR has been lodged after three years on 11.12.2018 and the delay in lodging the belated FIR has not been explained by the prosecutrix; that according to the version of the FIR, the first informant purchased the plot from the appellant on 02.11.2015 and after purchase of the plot, she has constructed tin shed and started residing at the said plot; that after some time, Hon'ble the Chief Minister initiated steps to get the Gaon Sabha land vacated from the occupant and in the process of which, the land of the appellant was also subjected to get vacated; that accordingly, the accused/appellant cheated the first informant and executed a sale deed of the Gaon Sabha land, accordingly the informant demanded the sale consideration amount from the appellant, he has assured to refund the same, but did not refund till date for which the present FIR was lodged; that execution of the sale deed of Gaon Sabha land in favour of informant as alleged in the FIR is wholly false and incorrect; that in fact the appellant is a Bhumidhar of the plots no. 379 and 479 which is clear from the perusal of Khatauni extract for the Fasli year 1421 and 1430; that the appellant sold his Bhumidhari land from plot No. 479, which is situated near abadi land by registered sale deed on 02.12.2015 in which it has been specifically shown as residential plot; that the applicant is wholly ignorant of the above fact and he has not committed any offence nor he has cheated the informant; that the accused/appellant is old person, aged about 60 years and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ill-will and local politics; that accused/appellant is not having any criminal antecedent and he is languishing in jail since 13.12.2018 in connection with the present case.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that appellant sold the plot in favour of the informant knowing fully well that said plot belongs to Gaon Sabha. It is further submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court, hence the appellant is not entitled for bail Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, and on considering the fact and circumstances of the case, without adverting to the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the bail rejection order dated 01.01.2019 passed by the learned Trial Court is liable to be set aside..
In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. The aforesaid impugned order is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant Hemraj be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with following conditions:-
1. The appellant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.
2. He will not tamper with the witnesses.
3. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.
It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 T.S.