Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1911 of 2021 Appellant :- Rahul Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Pradeep Kumar Tiwari,Virendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Despite service of notice on respondent no. 2, none has appeared on her behalf to oppose the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is bring proceeded on merits.
2. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ashwini Prakash Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. 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 23.3.2021, passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Agra, in Case Crime No. 25 of 2021, under Sections - 306, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, 1989, Police Station - Tajganj, District - Agra, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 16.1.2021, the appellant is in confinement since 19.2.2021; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation; criminal history of two cases has been explained; 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, other than the delayed suspicion expressed in the FIR, there is no credible material as may lead to inference that the appellant had committed any positive act to provoke the deceased to commit suicide. 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/s, 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/s be enlarged on bail at this stage.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.3.2021 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
9. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Rahul 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 :- 21.12.2021 Prakhar