Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3038 of 2020 Appellant :- Jhunna Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Gautam,Ajai Kumar,Devesh Mishra,Vinod Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST Act as Amended, has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 21.05.2018 passed by Incharge Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, Court No.2, Moradabad, in Case Crime No.372 of 2017, under Sections 342, 376D, 328, 363, 368, 392, 411 I.P.C. and 3(2)5a SC/ST (P.A.) Act, P.S.
Chandausi, District Sambhal.
Contention, in brief, is that the version of the first information report and the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. itself place accusation against the accused Mahendra and Jai Singh, whereas, U-turn was made, the applicant's name surfaced only in the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Under similar circumstances, co- accused Rampat Yadav has already been admitted to bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.01.2019 in criminal misc. bail application no.4566 of 2018. In case the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 29.07.2017.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
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 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 21.05.2018, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant Jhunna Singh Yadav involved in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences 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 :- 29.10.2021 rkg