Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 807 of 2018 Appellant :- Nitten Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Rajiv Chowdhury,Pooja Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shailendra Kumar Yadav,Yogesh Kumar
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, 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 05.01.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, Varanasi, in Case Crime No.21 of 2017, under Sections 302, 380, 411 I.P.C. and 3(2) SC/ST (P.A.) Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Varanasi.
Contention, in brief, is that insofar as the allegations as contained in the first information report are concerned, the informant does not say anything as to who committed crime in question. The maternal uncle (Mausa) of the informant says that he saw the applicant near the place of the occurrence. The first information report was lodged when the maternal uncle (Mausa) of the informant was present at the police station but the first information report does not name any person. It is claimed that had maternal uncle (Mausa) of the informant seen the applicant near the place of the occurrence, the name of the applicant would have figured in the first information report, whereas, the first information report has been lodged against unknown person. The applicant had no motive to commit the offence in question. 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 25.01.2017.
Learned A.G.A. has 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 05.01.2018, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant Nitten Yadav 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 :- 29.10.2021 rkg