Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1819 of 2021 Appellant :- Rajiv Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Despite service of notice on respondent no. 2, none has appeared on his behalf to oppose the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is being proceeded on merits.
2. Heard Sri Rahul Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Janardhan Prakash, 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 24.11.2020, passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/Additional Session Judge, Court no.2, Pilibhit, in Case Crime No. 451 of 2019, under Sections - 302, 506, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Bisalpur, District - Pilibhit, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 25.8.2019, the appellant is in confinement since 2.11.2020; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest; the appellant has 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 entire family of the appellant has been falsely implicated in the occurrence. They had no connection with the same. In any case, there is no ocular evidence available. That evidence has been set up one month after the occurrence. Even in that, no role has been assigned to the appellant as may corroborate the ante-mortem injuries recorded in the post-mortem report. Also, it has been submitted, the allegations of violation of SC/ST Act are general and made to lend colour to the story.
5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. would submit that the FIR was lodged promptly. It makes allegation of last seen against the present appellant who along with two others came to the residence of the first informant and had taken him with them. The body of the deceased was found near the house of the present appellant.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, insofar as the FIR is prompt making specific allegation against the appellant and two others of having taken the deceased from his residence and insofar his body was found lying in a pool of blood near the house of the appellant, no ground is made out to grant bail to the present appellant.
7. In face of allegation of honour killing for which prima facie material exists as to motive, the present appeal is dismissed. However, it is expected that the learned court below shall make best efforts to conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from today.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021 Prakhar