Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1811 of 2021 Appellant :- Naresh @ Babu Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ramesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajay Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, 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 SC/ST Act as Amended, has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 15.03.2021 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, Meerut, in Special Session Trial No.42 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No.351 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, P.S. Parikshitgarh, District Meerut.
Contention, in brief, is that the applicant is neither named in the first information report nor any specific having been played by him, has been described in the first information report. It so happened that after lodging of the first information report on 28.10.2020 in respect of the incident which took placed on 28.10.2020, the applicant's name does not figure therein. However, the statement of the informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. for the first time on 28.10.2020, second statement of the informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 12.11.2020. In both the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. there is no disclosure about name of the applicant nor having any role played by him. But it so happened that the police in collusion with the informant developed false case and third statement of the informant was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 14.12.2020 after two months of the incident wherein grave suspicion was expressed that too in the shape of hearsay evidence.
It has been further contended that the informant came to know about involvement of the applicant when he was told by the other prosecution witnesses, whose statement was recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., whereas, fact is that in the previous statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. there is no disclosure about name and participation of the applicant as such. This by itself exposits falsity in respect of involvement of the applicant in the present case. Since the son of the present applicant was named in the first information report, therefore, the applicant has been deliberately involved by the informant in this case. In case the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 24.12.2020.
Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for 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 has been rejected, impugned herein 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 15.03.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant Naresh @ Babu involved in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences 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 :- 12.8.2021 rkg