Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3706 of 2021 Appellant :- Rajeev Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kuldeep Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Ashish Pandey
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 SC/ST Act as Amended, has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 22.7.2021, passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Etawah, in Case Crime No. 88 of 2021, under Sections - 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 302 I.P.C. and Sections - 3(2)5 SC/ST (P.A.) Act, P.S. Saifai, District Etawah.
Urge made on behalf of the appellant has been confined to the extent that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. In the dying declaration of the deceased, which is annexed as Annexure No.5 to the affidavit filed in support of the appeal, the name of the appellant has been deliberately spelt at the instance of the informant in collusion with the police by the deceased, however it is not so. Assuming it to be that the appellant was present, even then he was not actively participated in the offence nor any specific act attributed to him. Therefore, his case is very much distinguishable from that of the case of Raghvendra, who happens to be the person, who committed the crime by shooting on the deceased. In case the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 07.06.2021.
Sri Ram Ashish Pandey, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed prayer for bail.
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 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 22.7.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant - Rajeev Kumar involved in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences 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 appellants shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.
Order Date :- 26.10.2021 S Rawat