Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1915 of 2020 Appellant :- Ramkesh Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Akhil Ranjan Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dewendra Singh
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant- Ramkesh Yadav with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 13.03.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge POCSO Act, Court No. 1, District Gorakhpur in second bail application no.825 of 2020 arising out of case crime no. 816 of 2017 under Section 376, 452,504,506,120B IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Khorabar, District Gorakhpur.
As per allegations in the first information report initially lodged, the appellant had committed rape upon victim Sapna and since Anita, mother of the victim came to know about the alleged incident, thereafter, the accused appellant alongwith one Surya Lal also murdered Anita on 05.10.2017. Accordingly, case was registered against the appellant on various other sections under the Indian Penal Code. Under the provisions of POCSO Act, the accused appellant had approached this Court seeking bail, however same came to be rejected vide order dated 2nd August, 2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 19916 of 2019. Later on during investigation, the provisions of SC/St Act has also been included and chargesheet has been filed against the appellant.
It has been pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case as both informant as well as victim have gone hostile in court below during trial and statements of the informant Kaushalya Devi as well as victim has also been brought on record. As per statement of victim, the appellant has never committed rape upon her. He further submitted that the first information report has been lodged after two months of the incident and there is contradiction in the statement of the first informant and victim. The medical examination report of victim also not supported the case of the victim. He further submitted that the appellant has no criminal history and he is in jail since 24.11.2017. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant-applicant that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no chance of any early conclusion of trial.
Though the appeal has been opposed vehemently by the learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the complainant but they could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
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-applicant has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal 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 13.03.2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the above named accused-appellant 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.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official is further directed to verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 5.1.2021 Sanjeev