Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3134 of 2021 Appellant :- Nanhe Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Jag Narayan
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. List revised. None present for the informant.
2. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Ashwani Prakash Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
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 12.07.2021, passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kannauj, in Case Crime No.0037 of 2021, under Sections -420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station -Chhibramau, District - Kannauj, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 20.01.2021, the appellant is in confinement since 12.06.2021; 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 however, at present, no justifiable cause has been shown to continue the detention of the appellant for an indefinite period; on prima facie basis, it has been submitted that the FIR makes accusation against Vijendra Singh Chauhan and his son Aditya Chauhan. In the passing and without any actual occurrence, allegation has also been made against the appellant who neither executed the agreement to sell nor he was a marginal witness thereto. In any case, the appellant has remained confined for more than six months. Thus, in the context of the allegations made, he has become entitled to bail. 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 12.07.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
9. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Nanhe Singh, 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 :- 16.12.2021 S.Chaurasia