Heard Ms. Ainakshi Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 13.08.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Allahabad in Case Crime No.42 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 302 IPC and 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S. Audhyogik Kshetra, District Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case on account of old enmity and he has not committed any offence. He adds that as per the allegations made in the first information report, on 20/21/02.2020 at about 01:00 a.m., the younger brother of the appellant, namely Mahesh @ Shaktiman Advivasi went to see the orchestra at the marriage ceremony of daughter of Jai Sigh Jatava where informant alongwith his brother Rajendra @ Dinesh and family were also present and in the meantime appellant and other co- accused persons reached and they beaten his brother by lathi and danda. He submits that general role has been assigned against all the accused persons including the appellant. He further submits that there is only one injury on the head of the deceased, namely, lacerated wound 6 cm x 4 cm on Rt. side of skull, which is the cause of the death of the deceased.
He stated that six persons as per the version of the FIR are stated to have been participated in the incident and deceased died due to aforementioned antemortem head injury but there is no direct evidence as to who was the author of this injury. The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 22.02.2020.
Learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail of the appellant.
I have considered the rival submissions so made and having gone through the entire record as well as the order by which, bail application of the appellant-applicant 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 13.08.2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant, namely, Raju Singh @ Dadu Singh Yadav involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that applicant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.
Order Date :- 22.2.2021 Raj