The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against an order denying bail under the SC/ST Act. The court found it a fit case for bail without expressing an opinion on merits and set aside the impugned order.
Set aside bail rejection order; released appellant on bail with personal bond and two reliable sureties.
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. - 1419 of 2019
Appellant :- Amit Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vijendra Pal Singh,Smt. Krishna Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record. Despite the service of notice no one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party no.2
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 24.01.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Etah in Bail Application No. 92 of 2018, CNR No.UPET-01000297-2019 in Case crime No.155 of 2018, under Sections 370, 504, 506, 376D I.P.C. and 3(2)5Ka SC/ST Act, P.S. Jaithara, District Etah, seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.
Learned counsel for the accused/appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 22.11.2017 and the first information report was lodged in pursuance of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 15.04.2018 after about five months. He submitted that the victim in her statement, recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. has said that she left her house with her husband Anil with her own sweet will and she has solemnized marriage with Anil. She has further deposed that now she is pregnant of about five months. She denied the allegation that she was sold to Bunty by Reena. She has also said that she went with Anil to Bahadurgarh with her own sweet will and she made physical relations with Anil with her own sweet will. The victim in her statement, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which was recorded after about nine months on 21.08.2018, in which she has specifically said that she was sold to one Bunty and she has specifically mentioned that Amit and Bunty both had raped with her. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that it is not humanly possible that two real brothers would commit rape on a girl in presence of their mother. He further submitted that the appellant is in jail since 25.09.2018.
Per contra, learned A.G.A., for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the accused is of bad character and he is having a criminal history of one case.
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 appellants Amit Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Order Date :- 9.5.2019
R./
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal appeal challenging the bail rejection order is maintainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amit Verma
State Of U.P.
Ajit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
