Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5901 of 2021 Appellant :- Sonu Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jaysingh Yadav 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 have been received by him, amongst others, as to service effected on respondent no.2 on 15.12.2021. None has appeared on his behalf. Accordingly, the matter has been proceeded on merits.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant; Sri Nagendra Srivastava, 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 16.11.2021, passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act/ Additional District and Session Judge, Lalitpur, in Case Crime No.793 of 2020, under Sections -323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da)(Dha) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station -Kotwali Lalitpur, District -Lalitpur, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 14.10.2020, the appellant is in confinement since 15.10.2020; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest; criminal history of eleven cases has been explained in paragraph no.22 in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application. Appellant claims to have been enlarged on bail in nine out of eleven cases. As to the other two cases, it has been stated that the same have lapsed with time; chargesheet has already been submitted yet, trial has not commenced. Therefore, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; on prima facie basis, it has been submitted, that wholly false accusation has been made in the FIR. There is no injury report. In any case, the appellant has remained confined for more than one year. Injuries are stated to be simple in nature. 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 & 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 16.11.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
9. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Sonu Yadav, 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 :- 20.12.2021 S.Chaurasia