Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5998 of 2021 Appellant :- Sunil Kumar Sahani Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav,Rajesh Kumar Singh 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 has been received, amongst other, as to service effected on respondent no.2 of the present bail application, however, date of service could not be ascertained. None has appeared on her behalf. Accordingly the matter has been proceeded on merits, without prejudice to the right of the respondent no.2 to file recall of this order.
2. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, 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 30.10.2021, passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. (P.O.A.) Act, Sonebhadra, in Case Crime No. 257 of 2021, under Sections - 363, 366 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station - Chopan, District - Sonebhadra, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 23.9.2021, the appellant is in confinement since 30.9.2021; 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, the FIR allegations apart, the alleged victim was about 18 years of age on the date of occurrence. Thus, the age of the victim is disputed. Further, it has been submitted, in her statement recorded during investigation, the victim has materially diluted the prosecution allegation. 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 30.10.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
9. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Sunil Kumar Sahani, 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 :- 23.12.2021 Prakhar