Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 525 of 2021 Appellant :- Krishna @ Pintu Rai Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kalp Dev Mishra,Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sadhu Sharan
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sadhu Saran, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes & The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 20.01.2021, passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T, Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Ghazipur in Case Crime No. 338 of 2020, under Sections - 147, 148, 307, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)V S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Mardah, District - Ghazipur.
Contention raised on behalf of the appellant has been confined to the extent that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity and village partibandi. The appellant had no specific motive to commit any crime. More so, assuming it to be that any offence was committed, then the role of firing has been assigned to another person. If the case of firing on the victim is admitted, even then that is not on the vital part of the body, but it is on the thigh, which is not the vital part. Therefore, to say that it would have cause death is not acceptable. Criminal history of the appellant has been satisfactorily explained in paragraph no.3 of the supplementary affidavit filed in support of this appeal. In case, the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant is languishing in jail since 22.11.2020.
Learned A.G.A. and Sri Sadhu Saran, learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the 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-applicant has been rejected, impugned herein in 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 20.01.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant, namely, Krishna @ Pintu Rai involved in the aforesaid crime 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.
However, this order will not prejudice the trial court while deciding the case on merit.
Order Date :- 6.4.2021 S Rawat