Court No. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1611 of 2020 Appellant :- Vijay Kumar Patel Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anand Mohan Pandey,Amlendu Maya Shukla,Amrendra Kumar,Krishan Mohan Pandey,Mohammad Khalid Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sudhanshu Singh
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sudhanshu Singh, learned counsel for the informant, 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 03.03.2020, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Allahabad in Case Crime No. 221 of 2019, under Sections - 376, 506 I.P.C. and Section - 3(2)V of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station - Bahariya, District - Allahabad.
Appellant claims to have been falsely implicated in this case on several counts; prime argument being that the prosecutrix is major and she of her own freewill entered into physical relationship with the appellant, which is very much admitted to her. The only denial is that on the pretext of entering into marriage, this relationship was established, however it is not so. She got married with the appellant but later on, some misunderstanding developed, due to which a false F.I.R. has been lodged against the appellant. In fact, no criminal offence is made out against the appellant. 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 15.9.2019.
Sri Sudhanshu Singh, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
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 03.03.2020, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant - Vijay Kumar Patel 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 :- 28.10.2021 S Rawat