Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7709 of 2019 Appellant :- Suraj Sharma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Satya Prakash Shukla,Ghan Shyam Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anand Kumar
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST Act as Amended, has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, Sonbhadra, in Case Crime No.98 of 2019, under Sections 376, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Karma, District Sonbhadra.
The applicant claim to have been falsely implicated in this case on several counts, prime being that assuming it to be true though denied any such incident occurred on 18.05.2019, whereas, the first information report was belatedly lodged against the applicant on 04.10.2019. The prosecutrix is major, she of her own pressurized the applicant to enter into marriage. On refusal by the appellant, cock and bull story was set up by the prosecutrix. Assuming it to be that the applicant was hostile towards the prosecutrix even then she accompanied the applicant and resided with him at Obera, in district Sonbhadral which itself belies the prosecution story that any pressure was exercised upon the prosecutrix to reside with the applicant for a long period without any protest. In case the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 25.10.2019.
Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.
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 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 26.11.2019, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant Suraj Sharma involved in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences 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 :- 29.10.2021 rkg