Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5336 of 2021 Appellant :- Sheshnath Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bipin Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Despite service of notice on respondent no. 2, none has appeared on her behalf to oppose the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is being proceeded on merits.
2. Heard Sri Bipin Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vikas Goswami, 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 22.10.2021, passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/Additional Session Judge, Gorakhpur, in Case Crime No. 280 of 2021, under Sections - 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Jhangaha, District - Gorakhpur, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 29.7.2021, the appellant is in confinement since 11.8.2021; 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, deceased went missing on 21.7.2021. No report was made at that stage. Two days thereafter, unidentified body was discovered in the village pond. Upon its identification, inquest was drawn in presence of brother of the deceased. Post-mortem report revealed certain ante-mortem injuries. Four days thereafter on 29.7.2021, the FIR was lodged relying on last seen evidence that is claimed to have been fabricated on account of other disputes between the parties. Thus, it has been submitted, the prosecution case is based on weak/unreliable circumstantial evidence. 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, 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 be enlarged on bail at this stage.
8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 22.10.2021 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
9. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Sheshnath 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 :- 21.12.2021 Prakhar