Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2871 of 2020 Appellant :- Raheesh Yadav @ Krishna Gopal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Piyush Kumar Shukla,Rajiv Lochan Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Babul Kumar Sharma
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 Scheduled Castes & The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 05.10.2020, passed by Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jhansi, in Case Crime No. 45 of 2020, under Sections - 147, 336, 323, 504, 325, 506 I.P.C. and 3(1)Da, Dha and 3(2)5A Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station - Samthar, District - Jhansi.
Contention raised on behalf of the appellant has been confined to the extent that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. No offence has been committed by the applicant. Similarly circumstanced another co-accused- Monti @ Harishankar has already been admitted to bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3468 of 2020, on 22.3.2021. A copy of the said order has been produced by the learned counsel for the appellant, the same is taken on record. The criminal history of the appellant has been explained in paragraph no. 16 of the affidavit filed in support of the appeal. In case, the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28.8.2020.
Learned A.G.A. has though opposed the bail of the appellant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
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-applicant 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 05.10.2020, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant, namely, Raheesh Yadav @ Krishna Gopal 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.
However, this order will not prejudice the trial court while deciding the case on merit.
Order Date :- 6.4.2021 S Rawat