Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6023 of 2021 Appellant :- Tinku Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Avnish Kumar Srivastava,Mohammad Anas Raza Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J
1. Heard Mr Avnish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr Nagendra Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and; Ms Priyanka Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.2.
2. 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 26.10.2021, passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Meerut, in Case Crime No. 100 of 2021, under Sections - 366, 376, 323 IPC and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Hastinapur, District - Meerut, whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits, against the FIR lodged on 30.5.2021, the appellant is in confinement since 31.5.2021; 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, though the FIR allegations were supported during investigation, at the trial, the first informant Devendra Kumar (PW.1) and the alleged victim (PW.2) have turned hostile. They have completely denied the occurrence and/or involvement of 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.
4. The above status of the trial has not been disputed by learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned AGA.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.10.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
8. Let the accused-appellant, namely, Tinku, 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 Digitally signed by SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH Date: 2021.12.24 10:42:07 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad