Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2617 of 2021 Appellant :- Kamlesh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Prakash Pandey,Agnivesh,Jadu Nandan Yadav,Shailesh Kumar 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 Jadu Nandan Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Janardhan Prakash, 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 12.02.2021, passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Farrukhabad, in Case Crime No.427 of 2020, under Sections -147, 148, 323, 307, 504, 506, 149, 427 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2) (5) S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station -Kotwali Fatehgarh, District -Farrukhabad, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 02.12.2020, the appellant is in confinement since 02.01.2021; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest; criminal history of one case has been explained; chargesheet has already been submitted yet, trial has not commenced. Therefore, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; on prima facie basis, it has been submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated. The injuries are wholly manufactured as is clear from the bare perusal of the injury report and the lack of X-ray and opinion of the doctor as to the nature of injuries. In fact, the injury is claimed to be simple. 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 12.02.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
9. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Kamlesh, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two heavy 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.
10. In the event of any attempt being made by the appellant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence, the informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material, that application if filed, may be taken up on priority.
Order Date :- 20.12.2021 S.Chaurasia