Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4551 of 2018 Appellant :- Manoj Bind Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Hari Prakash Singh,Alok Kumar Tiwari,Arun Kumar,Raj Kumar Sharma,Sandeep Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Datt Dauholia
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Notice had been issued to the respondent no.2 to engage another counsel. It is reported to have been served. However, none appears on her behalf. Accordingly, the matter has been proceeded.
2. Shri Arvind Kumar Bharadwaj, Advocate, holding brief of learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ankit Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.
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 11.4.2018, passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.4, Jaunpur, in Case Crime No. 356 of 2017, under Sections - 376, 506, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Machhalishahr, District - Jaunpur, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 16.4.2017, the appellant is in confinement since 28.6.2017; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest; the appellant has no criminal history; though investigation is pending yet at present no justifiable cause has been shown to continue the detention of the applicants for an indefinite period; on prima facie basis, for the purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted, the alleged victim girl had attained the age of majority on the date of occurrence. She was known to the appellant. Thus, the allegation of rape has been made only upon pregnancy having arisen. Thus, it has been submitted, the parties were in consensual relationship over a long period of time. The FIR allegations emerged on account of the relationship having broken down. The FIR allegations are inherently improbable. 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/s, cannot be sustained.
7. Without drawing any inference as to facts, in view of the above noted facts and submissions and having regard to the status of the evidence, keeping in mind the lack of criminal history and the further fact, in such circumstances, the applicant has remained confined for four and a half years, let the appellant be enlarged on bail at this stage.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 11.4.2018, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
9. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Manoj Bind, 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.
10. It is made clear that, in the event of any attempt being made by the applicant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence, 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 :- 24.12.2021 Prakhar