Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3506 of 2020 Appellant :- Mohd Arif Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Pathak,Arvind Kumar Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Avadh Raj Sharma
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Janardan Prakash, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record the written notice attempted to be served on learned counsel for the informant. On that basis, it has been submitted, learned counsel for the informant has refused to taken notice. Accordingly, the matter has been proceeded on merits.
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 12.11.2020, passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Aligarh, in Case Crime No. 158 of 2020, under Sections - 376, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T.
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station - Pisawa, District - Aligarh, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 28.09.2020, the appellant is in confinement since 14.10.2020; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest; as to criminal history of one case, it has been submitted, the same has been explained; chargesheet has already been submitted yet, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; on prima facie basis, it has been submitted, though FIR allegation of rape committed on false promise of marriage, the alleged victim was married from before and was about 25 years of age. In that context, it has been submitted that wholly inherently improbable allegations have been made against the appellant though the parties have formed consensual relationship. 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 12.11.2020, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
9. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Mohd. Arif, 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.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021 Abhilash