Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 581 of 2020 Appellant :- Sugreev Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anup Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record.
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 14.01.2020 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), court no.2, Maharajganj in case crime no.71 of 2017, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 497 IPC and Section 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Paniyara, District- Maharajganj.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case on account village parti-bandi and he has not committed any offence. The story of the prosecution has been said to be false and baseless. Appellant has no motive to commit the offence in question. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the appellant and the story developed by the prosecution cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination. The victim is major and aged about 37 years. There are contradiction in the statements of the victim under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. The motive behind the false implication of the appellant is that the appellant could not file his nomination the upcoming election of Gram Pradhan. He further submits that in case, he is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding and misusing the liberty of bail. It has been assured on behalf of the appellant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make available before the court whenever required. The appellant is languishing in jail since 14.01.2020. The appellant has no criminal history.
Also heard the learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsel for the informant.
I have considered the rival submissions so made and having gone through the entire record as well as the order by which, bail application of the appellants-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 appellants have made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.01.2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant, namely, Sugreev Yadav involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond 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.
However, this order will not prejudice the trial court while deciding the case on merit.
Order Date :- 12.4.2021 Raj