Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 867 of 2021 Appellant :- Ranjeet @ Manoj @ Anuj Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravi Shankar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Re: Criminal Misc. Exemption Application No. 1 of 2021
1. In absence of any objection to the correctness of the true copy of the FIR annexed, exemption granted.
2. Defect stands cured. Application is allowed.
Order on Appeal
3. Though service report is awaited, upon query made, learned AGA states, written instructions has been received, amongst other, as to service effected on respondent no. 2 on 11.11.2021 of the present bail application. None has appeared on his behalf. Accordingly the matter has been proceeded on merits.
4. Heard Sri Adya Prasad Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant, Advocate, holding brief of learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
5. 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 28.9.2021, passed by Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Budaun, in Case Crime No. 317 of 2014, under Sections - 308, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)10 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Ushait, District - Budaun, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
6. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 2.7.2014, the appellant is in confinement since 16.9.2021; 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; charge-sheet has already been submitted yet, trial has not commenced.
Therefore, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; on prima facie basis, for the purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted, with respect to incised wound that may have been grievous and fatal, no weapon assignment has been made in the FIR or in the statement recorded during investigation. In any case, role of causing injury has been assigned to co-accused Ramveer, whose case may therefore stand on different footing. At the same time, referring to the other injuries, it has been stated, those were not grievous but simple in nature. Also, it has been submitted, the allegations of violation of SC/ST Act are general and made to lend colour to the story.
7. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
8. 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.
9. Without drawing any inference as to facts, in view of the above noted facts and 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.
10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.9.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
11. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Ranjeet @ Manoj @ Anuj, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bonds and two heavy 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.
12. It is made clear that, in the event of any attempt being made by the applicant to intimidate the witness or to tamper the evidence, informant shall be at liberty to file a bail cancellation application supported by the relevant material. That application if filed, may be taken up on priority.
Order Date :- 24.12.2021 Prakhar