Criminal Appeal where Arvind challenged the rejection of his bail. The Special Court allowed the appeal, set aside the bail rejection, and granted bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.
Bail granted on personal bond and two sureties; impugned bail rejection order set aside.
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. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2638 of 2020
Appellant :- Arvind Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi,Satish Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Amrendra Pratap Singh,Ramesh Kumar
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant- Arvind with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 21.07.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lalitpur in Bail Application No. 297 of 2020 in Case Crime No. 48 of 2020, under Sections 376, 323, 354, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S.- Banpur, District- Lalitpur.
As per the allegations made in the first information report, while the informant had gone to grazing ground along with goats that the main accused Arvind started misbehaving and showing indecent behaviour with the informant and when she resisted, he forcefully put her down and committed rape and also physically assaulted her.
It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the appellantapplicant that the appellant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated for ulterior motives. It is also argued that it is because of the unnecessary cattle interference in the agricultural field that the dispute arose but there was no such crime committed at his end as is alleged in the first information report. It is also argued that the medical examination report does not show any sign of sexual assault committed upon the victim as no injury as has been explained in the FIR have been found. Even the FSL report has not received back till date and the appellant is languishing in jail since 13.03.2020. It is further argued by the learned counsel that there is a criminal history of four cases in the past which have been duly explained by him vide paragraph no. 16 of the rejoinder affidavit and in all of them he is on bail.
Though the appeal has been opposed vehemently by the learned A.G.A. but he could not dispute the aforesaid facts.
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-applicant has been rejected, impugned herein this appeal.
Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the 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 21.07.2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the above named accused-appellant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that applicant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official is further directed to verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 22.1.2021 IrfanUddin
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the bail rejection order passed by the Special Judge under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act should be set aside in light of the lack of convincing arguments by the State.
Whether the appellant has made out a case for bail given the allegations of rape and assault, the nature of the FIR, and the absence of corroborative evidence like injuries or the FSL report.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Arvind
State Of U.P.
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
