In this criminal appeal under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC, the Single Judge allowed the appeal against an earlier bail refusal, setting aside the impugned order and granting the appellant release on bail with sureties.
Appellant Govind released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of like amount.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1376 of 2018
Appellant :- Govind Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Bachan Yadav
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Today, when the case has been taken up, none has appeared on behalf of respondent no.2 despite service of notice.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.
This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed challenging the order dated 3.2.2018 passed by learned Special Judge(POCSO Act)/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Mau in Bail Application No.11 of 2018(Govind Vs. State), arising out of Case crime No.235 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 376D I.P.C. and 3(2)5 SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Ranipur, District Mau, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He next submitted that the incident took place on 30.7.2017 and the first information report was lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay of 24 hours on 31.7.2017. He has submitted that as per medical of the victim she is 19 years of age. He further submitted that the victim was in a consensual relationship with the accused and she had gone with the accused of her own sweet will. Lastly submitted that applicant is in jail since 20.8.2017, having no criminal history and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the trial by all means.
Per contra, learned A.G.A., for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the nature of allegations, the gravity of offence, the severity of punishment, the evidence appearing in the case, without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court finds it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the aforementioned order is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant Govind be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Order Date :- 15.5.2019 Mini
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is a fit case for bail in a criminal appeal arising from a bail application under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC sections.
Whether the delay in lodging the First Information Report negates the gravity of the offences chargeable against the appellant.
Whether the appellant's claim of consensual relationship and innocence warrants release on bail.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Govind
State Of U.P.
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
