Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2645 of 2021 Appellant :- Rinku Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sangam Lal Kesharwani,Ajay Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sudhir Kumar
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Sangam Lal Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Ankit Srivastav, learned AGA for the State. List revised. None appears on behalf of the informant to oppose the present appeal.
2. 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 04.01.2021, passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Meerut, in Case Crime No. 686 of 2020, under Sections - 376-D, 377, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T.
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station - Medical, District - Meerut, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 15.09.2020, the appellant is in confinement since 20.09.2020; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest; as to criminal history, it has been submitted, the same has been explained; chargesheet has already been submitted yet, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; on prima facie basis, it has been submitted, other than the evidence of the alleged victim girl, there is no material to proceed against the present appellant. Yet, at the trial, the victim has turned hostile. she has completely denied the occurrence. She has further stated that she received injuries as a result of fall from a two wheeler. Also, it has been submitted, the allegations of violation of SC/ST Act are general and made to lend colour to the story.
4. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 04.01.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
8. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Rinku, 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 :- 22.12.2021 Abhilash