Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Vijit Saxena, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Kuldeep Saxena, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondent.
This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 14.10.2020 passed by Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Chandauli in Bail Application No.- 1033 of 2020 rejecting the bail application arising out of Case Crime No.- 185 of 2020 under Sections 376, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station- Alinagar, District- Chandauli.
As per the allegations made in the first information report the appellant was in physical relation with the informant since 22nd December, 2018 in the name of marriage and after some time the appellant has refused to marry with her abusing her with castiest remarks.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case as she was very much a consenting party and she almost in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that she had entered into matrimonial knot in Latif Shah Majar, Chakiya part, however, appellant had assured for Court marriage also, but he did not do sow, however she continued to have physical relation with the appellant. In the statement, the victim has completely denied the theory of using any abusive language with castiest remarks. It has been further submitted that the victim being a scheduled caste and village partybandi has falsely implicated the appellant. It is further submitted that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no chance of any early conclusion of trial. The appellant is languishing in jail since 23.08.2020.
Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant have though opposed the bail of the appellant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
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.
Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the complainant/ State so as to justify and sustain the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application of the appellant.
Thus, in view of the above 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 14.10.2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant, namely, Roshan @ Mulayam involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on their 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 :- 4.2.2021 Sanjeev