Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5963 of 2021 Appellant :- Rajkumar Gupta Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Vikas Goswami, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
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 appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 09.12.2021, passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Varanasi, in Case Crime No. 06 of 2021, under Sections - 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station - Rohania, District - Varanasi, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, earlier the appellant had approached this Court by means of Criminal Appeal No. 646 of 2021 (Rajkumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and Another) wherein below quoted order was passed:-
"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 13.01.2021, passed by Special Judge SC/ST, Varanasi in Case Crime No. 06 of 2021, under Sections - 323, 504, 354(B) & 376 I.P.C. & 3(1)(r), 3(1)s & 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, P.S. Rohania, District Varanasi.
Appellant claims to have been falsely implicated in this case on several counts; prime argument being that the prosecutrix is a tenant in the house of the appellant and she was running a beauty parlour, where she herself was involved in illegal activities, which were objected by the appellant. Thereafter, a false and concocted case has been set up against the appellant. The prosecutrix is major. In fact, the prosecutrix has been asked to vacate the house of the appellant, therefore in order to exercise pressure, the prosecutrix has thrusted a false and concocted case upon the appellant. 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 05.01.2021.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
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 13.01.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant - Rajkumar Gupta 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 appellant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail. "
4. Presently, it has been submitted that Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been added.
5. Inasmuch as the appellant has already been granted bail, upon notice to the informant, in the earlier bail appeal, requirement of notice is dispensed with.
6. 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 appellant, cannot be sustained.
7. Without drawing any inference as to facts, in view of the above noted facts & submissions and having regard to the status of the evidence, as has been shown to exist on record, let the appellant be enlarged on bail at this stage.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.12.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
9. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Rajkumar Gupta, involved in the aforesaid crime 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 appellant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.
Order Date :- 22.12.2021 Faraz