Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 980 of 2019 Appellant :- Rajju Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Tarun Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Devendra Kumar Tiwari,Ram Raksha Tiwari
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. in opposition and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14A (2) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short 'Act, 1989') has been filed on behalf of the appellant, challenging the order dated 8.1.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Mahoba, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.06 of 2019 (Rajju v. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 47 of 2018, under Sections 302, 506, 147, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(5) of Act, 2015, Police Station - Kharela, District - Mahoba, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence. F.I.R. has been lodged on the next day of the occurrence at 02.52 P.M. and as per the FIR, no one has seen the incident and the alleged recovery, which has been implicated to the present accused Rajju, is fake and the alleged recovery of lathi and kulhadi were recovered from the pointing out of the present accused but there is no FSL report regarding that any blood stain was found on the lathi and kulhadi. He further submitted that the statement of the witnesses have been recorded by the Investigating Officer at belated stage and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case on account of enmity. He further contended that the appellant is languishing in jail since 16.05.2018. Lastly he submitted that co-accused Roshan Singh and Kallu Singh were released on bail by another Bench of this Court vide orders dated 1.4.2019 and 11.1.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2442 of 2019 and 3999 of 2018. Hence, the present appellant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court.
Without commenting on the merits of the case, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the bail application filed before the court below deserves to allowed. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 8.1.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Mahoba, is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant-Rajju be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Mini