Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3690 of 2019 Appellant :- Raj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Samir Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Kesari
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State as well as Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 18.04.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi in Bail Application No.1454 of 2019 (Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No.127 of 2019, under Sections 323, 342, 363, 370, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Maduadeeh, District Varanasi seeking his release on bail.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that no specific role of kidnapping the victim has been assigned to the appellant and it is only stated that the appellant asked the victim Neha to accompany the co-accused Vinod and except the said evidence, there is absolutely nothing against the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that role of kidnapping the victim and taking her away has been alleged against the co-accused Vinod. Looking to the role assigned to the appellant, prima facie a case for bail is made out.
Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that there is no evidence that the present incident has been committed only on account of the fact that the victim belongs to the scheduled caste.
Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that the appellant is in jail since 24.03.2019 and he has no criminal history to his credit, as such, he may be released on bail.
Per contra, learned AGA as well as Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the fact that no specific role of kidnapping the victim has been assigned to the appellant and that the appellant is in jail since 24.03.2019.
I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.
Let the appellant Raj Kumar involved in Case Crime No.127 of 2019, under Sections 323, 342, 363, 370, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Maduadeeh, District Varanasi be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.
1. The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
3. The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.
5. The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.
Order Date :- 21.8.2019 /Nadim