Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4783 of 2021 Appellant :- Suman Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Daya Shanker Pandey 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 Daya Shanker Pandey, 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 28.6.2021, passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act)/Additional Session Judge, Ghaziabad in Case Crime No. 417 of 2021, under Section -
302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station - Murad Nagar, District - Ghaziabad, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 17.5.2021, the appellant is in confinement since 18.5.2021; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation; 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, a quarrel had erupted between the deceased and the sons of the present applicant namely Vikas and Kamal. The applicant had only intervened to disengage the parties in quarrel. Unfortunately, Sonu succumbed to the injuries suffered, resulting in false accusation against the appellant, by way of over implication of the entire family. No recovery was made from the present appellant. 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 28.6.2021 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
9. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Suman involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on her 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 Prakhar