Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 594 of 2021 Appellant :- Smt. Neeraj Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Umesh Chandra Tiwari,Rohit Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,N.K.Pandey
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. List revised. None appears on behalf of respondent no.2 whereas learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA are present.
2. Defects has been shown to have been removed by filing supplementary affidavit.
3. Accordingly, defect is being cured. Office to allot regular number to the appeal. 4. 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 14.6.2021, passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Sambhal, in Case Crime No. 117 of 2021, under Section - 304 IPC & 60(1) Excise Act and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act Act, Police Station - Gunnaur, District - Sambhal, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 13.3.2021, the appellant is in confinement since 15.3.2021; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation; the appellant had no criminal history up to the date of occurrence; charge-sheet has already been submitted yet, trial has not commenced. Therefore, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; on prima facie basis, for the purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted, appellant is the wife of the named accused Kalyan. She had no role to play in the occurrence. She has been falsely implicated on presumptions and conjectures. 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 and 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 14.6.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
9. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Smt. Neeraj involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on her 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 :- 20.12.2021 Prakhar