Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 333 of 2021 Appellant :- Sant Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ramanand Pandey,Pardeep Narayan Pandey,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of S.C. and the S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989) has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 7.11.2020, passed by Court of Special Judge/Exclusive Special Court S.C.S.T. Act, Gorakhpur in Case Crime No. 698 of 2020, under Sections - 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Chiluwatal, District - Gorakhpur.
Appellant claims to have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity and animosity. The fact is that the appellant asked the victim to cook food as such and also gave some money to the victim. Now, it so happened that marriage of the appellant was settled and was going to be solemnized, which agitated the victim alot for reason best known to her and she cooked up a false story of rape. There is no corroboration of any rape. In the medical examination report, no injury was caused on the person of the victim. In case, the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 25.10.2020.
Learned A.G.A. has 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 7.11.2020, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant, namely, Sant Kumar 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 :- 6.4.2021 S Rawat