Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 620 of 2021 Appellant :- Sunil Shukla And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants, 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 appellants with the prayer to set aside the order dated 5.1.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Allahabad in case crime no.610 of 2020, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 201, 302 and 342 IPC and Section 3(1)r, s and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Meja, District Prayagraj.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity and they have not committed any offence. The story of the prosecution has been said to be false and baseless. He added that the only eye-witness mentioned in the FIR, namely, Deenanath Bhartiya has not made any allegations against the appellants. There is no recovery on the pointing out of the appellants. The appellants have no motive to commit the offence in question. The appellants are not present on the spot. General and vague allegations have been launched against the appellants. The appellants have no criminal history. He further submits that in case, they are admitted to bail, there are no possibility of their absconding and misusing the liberty of bail. It has been assured on behalf of the appellants that they are ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make available before the court whenever required. The appellants are languishing in jail since 30.10.2020.
Also heard the learned Additional Government Advocate.
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 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 appellants.
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 5.1.2021 rejecting the bail of the appellants are set aside.
Let the accused-appellants, namely, Sunil Shukla and Dhanesh Shukla 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 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 :- 6.4.2021 Raj