Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6497 of 2018 Appellant :- Mohd. Ayan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Diwan Saifullah Khan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ghandikota Sri Devi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14A (2) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'Act, 1989') has been filed on behalf of the appellant, challenging the order dated 17.10.2018 passed by Learned Additional Session Judge IInd/ Special Judge, SC & ST Act Varanasi, in Bail Application No. 3582 of 2018 (Mohd. Ayan Versus State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 744 of 2017, under Sections 376D 323, 328, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Lanka, District Varanasi, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that as per the FIR version and the statement of victim under Section 164 Cr. P.C., the opposite party no.2 and co-accused Mohd. Arshad are familiar with each other and FIR of these two was disclosed to the husband, then at the instance of her husband, false case has been initiated against Arshad and his friend i.e.; present applicant and one Deepak; that as per version of the victim under Section 164 Cr. P.C., co- accused Arshad called her on phone and present applicant along with Deepak Mishra assaulted her and administered some intoxicated medicine, however, no injury was found on the body of the victim; that the victim is married lady, aged about 35 years; that the accused/applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is in judicial custody since 27.07.2018; that the accused/appellant has no previous criminal history; that co-accused Raj Kumar Maurya has already been enlarged on bail by the learned lower court vide order dated 11.03.2018.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for private- respondent opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court. Learned counsel for the private-respondent contended that appellant and other co-accused have committed rape on the prosecutrix.
Without adverting on the merits of the case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the bail application filed before the court below deserves to allowed. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. The aforesaid impugned order is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant Mohd. Ayan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on following directions:-
1. The appellant will continue to attend and co-operate in the trial pending before the court concerned on the date fixed after release.
2. He will not tamper with the witnesses.
3. He will not indulge in any illegal activities during the bail period.
It is further directed that the identity, status and residence proof of the sureties be verified by the authorities concerned before they are accepted.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 T.S.