Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5392 of 2021 Appellant :- Rahul Yadav And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Narendra Singh,Akhilesh Bharti Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kaushlendra
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Narendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri Janardhan Prakash, learned AGA for the State and; Sri Kaushlendra, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
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 appellants with the prayer to set aside the order dated 22.10.2021, passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, in Case Crime No. 485 of 2018, under Sections - 366, 376-D I.P.C. and Section 3(2)V of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Meja, District - Allahabad, whereby bail application of the appellants have been rejected.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits, against the FIR lodged on 1.8.2018, the appellants are in confinement since 8.10.2021. As to delay, it has been submitted, though the FIR was lodged in August 2018, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded in July 2019. In any case, the allegations are entirely false; the appellants have no criminal history; 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, the alleged victim is a married lady. Parties were known from before. Merely because of certain other circumstances, extreme allegations have been made. Also, it has been submitted, the allegations of violation under 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 appellants, cannot be sustained.
6. 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 appellants be enlarged on bail at this stage.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.10.2021 rejecting the bail of the appellants is set aside.
8. Let the accused-appellants, namely, Rahul Yadav and Ajit Yadav involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that appellants shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021 Prakhar