Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5266 of 2021 Appellant :- Km. Kiran Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Akhilendra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajeev Malviya
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Akhilendra Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Rajeev Malviya learned counsel for the opposite party No.2; Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. 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 27.8.2021, passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Firozabad, in Case Crime No. 51 of 2021, under Sections - 147, 302, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5, 3(1)M S.C./S.T.
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station - Rasoolpur, District - Firozabad, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 26.2.2021, the appellant is in confinement since then; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case she is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest; the appellant has no criminal history; 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 by learned counsel for the appellant that the undisputed prosecution evidence is to the effect that the present appellant was in a relationship with the deceased; that relationship was objected to by the family of the appellant; in such circumstances and in view of earlier transaction where the mother of the deceased had assured the family of the present appellant that the deceased will not meet the appellant any further, it has been submitted that the appellant has been accused by way of over implication; in these circumstances it has been submitted that the appellant may remain entitled to bail considering the fact that the co- accused Ashok Kumar and Ajay Kumar have also been granted bail notwithstanding the observation made in that order vis-a- vis the present appellant. Also, it has been submitted, the allegations of violation of SC/ST Act are general and made to lend colour to the story.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has vehemently urged that the case of the present appellant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused Ashok Kumar and Ajay Kumar; it is the appellant who had last called the deceased whereupon he reached the appellant's house where he was brutally assaulted with stone and done to death by the appellant and her close family members. Similar arguments have been advanced by learned A.G.A..
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, once it is admitted that the appellant was in relationship with the deceased which provided motive to her family members for the commission of the offence, it does appear that the appellant may remain entitled to bail pending trial as there is no independent witness of the appellant having caused any fatal injury. At present, the order passed by the learned court below rejecting the bail application filed by the appellant, cannot be sustained.
6. 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.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.8.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
8. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Km. Kiran, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on her 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 :- 20.12.2021 Faraz