In a Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order rejecting the bail application of the appellant, Vinta @ Vintu, directing his release on personal bonds and sureties.
Set aside the order rejecting bail; release appellant on personal bonds and two sureties each of a 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. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1701 of 2021
Appellant :- Vinta @ Vintu Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Akhilesh Singh,Shivam Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
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 04.03.2021 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, Etah, in Case Crime No.06 of 2020, under Sections 452, 504, 506, 352, 354 I.P.C. and 3(2)5A SC/ST (P.A.) Act, P.S. Pilua, District Etah.
Contention, in brief, is that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to village partibandi. There is no medical report of the victim which may corroborate the allegations levelled against the appellant. The statement of the victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. contradicts each other. The appellant has nothing to do with the offence in question. 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 01.03.2021.
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 04.03.2021, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant Vinta @ Vintu 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 :- 7.9.2021 rkg
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail where the previous bail application was rejected.
If the lack of corroborative medical report and contradictory victim statement justify granting bail.
Vinta @ Vintu
State Of U.P.
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
