Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2918 of 2021 Appellant :- Pramod Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ramanuj Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Virendra Kumar Gupta
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Ramanuj Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Virendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the informant; Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
2. 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 18.05.2021, passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mahoba, in Case Crime No. 138 of 2021, under Sections - 376, 452, 506 I.P.C.; Sections - 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(5) and 3(2)(5-Ka) S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; Sections - 67 and 67-A of the Information Technology Amendment Act and Section 8 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, Police Station - Kabarai, District - Mahoba, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 06.05.2021, the appellant is in confinement since 09.05.2021; 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; chargesheet has already been submitted yet, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; on prima facie basis, it has been submitted, the prosecutrix was 24 years of age on the date of the occurrence. She had formed consensual relationship with the appellant. Only on account of other disputes and differences, false allegation of rape etc. had emerged though no evidence of any objectionable recording (video or photograph) having been made viral exists. The allegation of rape and the allegation of making viral objectionable video recording had been falsified. During the trial, the prosecutrix has turned hostile. Also, it has been submitted, the allegations of violation of SC/ST Act are general and made to lend colour to the story.
4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.05.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
8. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Pramod, 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 :- 17.12.2021 Abhilash