Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4760 of 2021 Appellant :- Rakesh Yadav @ Rakesh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Awadhesh Kumar Sharma,Sharda Vishwakarma,Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Second supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Despite service of notice on respondent no. 2, none has appeared on her behalf to oppose the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is being proceeded on merits.
3. Heard Mrs Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant; and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
4. 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 21.10.2021, passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Allahabad, in Case Crime No.780 of 2021, under Sections -328, 343, 376D, 504 & 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)V S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station -Naini, District -Prayagraj, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
5. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 10.10.2021, the appellant is in confinement since 11.10.2021; 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; chargesheet has already been submitted yet, trial has not commenced. Therefore, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; on prima facie basis, it has been submitted that a completely false accusation has been made in the FIR. Earlier, the mother of the alleged victim girl had lodged another FIR against the nephew of the present appellant and two others. In that allegation of loot and abduction were made. In that case, the statement of the alleged victim girl was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she completely denied the prosecution story.
Consequently, final report was submitted on 18.08.2021. Within two months therefrom, the present FIR has been lodged, this time making allegation against the father of Vinod Yadav and the present appellant and others (both brothers of Suresh Yadav), even this allegation is stated to be patently false as would be clear from the statement of the mother of the victim girl who offered a completely different narration as to the occurrence of abduction. Then, it has been submitted, though the abduction is alleged to have taken place on 04.10.2012, no missing person report or earlier FIR was lodged for a long period of six days. Also, it has been submitted, the allegations of violation of SC/ST Act are general and made to lend colour to the story.
6. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.10.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
10. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Rakesh Yadav @ Rakesh, 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 :- 24.12.2021 S.Chaurasia