Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the State is taken on record.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri K.D. Awasthi, learned Advocate on behalf of the complainant is taken on record.
Heard Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Girija Shanker Sen, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri K.D. Awasthi, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State respondents.
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 19th November, 2020 passed by Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Auraiya in Bail Application No.- 1000 of 2020 rejecting the bail application arising out of Case Crime No.- 472 of 2020 under Sections 376, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station- Kotwali Bidhuna, District- Auraiya.
The allegations in the first information report are that between 7:30 pm and 8:00 pm on 12th October, 2020 while the informant had gone to agricultural field to answer the nature's call the named accused applicant forced her down and committed rape. It is when she started crying that one Amit s/o Awadhesh who was passing by, came to her rescue and the named applicant ran away threatening of dire consequences if she reported to the police.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the victim informant has completely retracted regarding identification of the accused person who committed rape upon her. It is further argued that it is because of village politics that the applicant has come to be implicated in the present case. It is also argued that there is no previous criminal history to the credit of the applicant. It is further submitted that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no chance of any early conclusion of trial. The appellant is languishing in jail since 17th October, 2020.
Learned Additional Government Advocate 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 19th November, 2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant, namely, Sukhdev @ Sintu involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that applicant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.
The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official is further directed to verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 11.1.2021 Atmesh