Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6028 of 2021 Appellant :- Shakil Ahmad Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Akaram Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. 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 16.12.2021 of the present bail application. None has appeared on her behalf. Accordingly the matter has been proceeded on merits.
2. Heard Sri Mohd. Akaram, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Janardhan Prakash, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. 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 30.10.2021, passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Mainpuri, in Spl.S.T./Complaint Case No. 47 of 2019, under Sections - 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 376D , I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 SC./S.T. Act, Police Station - Allau, District - Mainpuri, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the criminal complaint, the appellant is in confinement since 17.9.2021; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation; 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, the present appellant is cousin brother of Shahnuma Alvi. The said Shahnuma Alvi was earlier married to Qamruddin Syed (PW-1). Further, it has been submitted, the said Qamruddin Syed is in relationship with the complainant Seema Devi. Only on account of past matrimonial discord in marriage of the said Qamruddin Syed and the fact that the appellant has testified as witness in support of Shahnuma Alvi against Qamruddin Syed, wholly false and imagined allegations have been made. Reference has also been made to the other cases lodged by the informant side (paragraph nos. 21 to 30 of the affidavit in support of the bail application). Also, it has been submitted, the allegations of violation of SC/ST Act are general and made to lend colour to the story.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
6. 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/s, cannot be sustained.
7. 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/s be enlarged on bail at this stage.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 30.10.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
9. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Shakil Ahmad, 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 :- 24.12.2021 Prakhar