Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4566 of 2018 Appellant :- Rampat Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Irshad Ahmad,Ajai Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14A (2) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'Act, 1989') has been filed on behalf of the appellant, challenging the order dated 04.07.2018 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Moradabad, in Bail Application No. 2030 of 2018 (Rampat Yadav v. State of U.P.), arising out of Case Crime No. 372 of 2017, pertaining to S.S.T. No. 1008 of 2017, under Sections 376D, 328, 363, 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Section 3(2)5ka of Act, 1989, Police Station - Chandausi, District - Sambhal, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in Criminal Appeal No. - 5847 of 2017 (Rampat v. State of U.P. and 2 Others), after considering all the material facts available on record, this Court allowed the appeal and the appellant was enlarged on bail. After investigation, the police added Sections 376D, 328, 363, 392, 411 of IPC and Section 3(2)(Va) of Act, 1989. Accordingly, the appellant filed second bail application before the trial court, which was rejected by the impugned order. There is no evidence of committing rape against the appellant. The medical evidence does not support the version of rape against the prosecutrix. He next contended that the appellant does not bear any criminal antecedents. He is not named in the F.I.R. The accused who were named in the F.I.R., have been exonerated by the police. In her statements under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., 1973, the prosecutrix has not made any allegation against the appellant. The appellant has been made accused in this case on the basis of statement of Gudiya.
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, however, admitted this fact that the appellant has been made accused in this cases on the basis of statement of Gudiya, whose statement was recorded by the I.O. on 10.07.2017.
Criminal Appeal No. - 5847 of 2017 (Rampat v. State of U.P. and 2 Others) was allowed by this Court vide its order dated 28.05.2018, after considering the material available on the record. Statement of Gudiya was recorded before the passing of the impugned order 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 04.07.2018 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Moradabad is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant - Rampat Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 I. Batabyal