Single judge allowed criminal appeal against bail rejection in a case under the SC/ST Act and IPC, setting aside the impugned order and directing the release of the appellant on bail subject to conditions.
Imbugned order rejecting bail was set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two 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. - 50
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 329 of 2021
Appellant :- Raju Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vikas Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard Sri Vikas Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for th complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 21.12.2020, passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Saharanpur in Case Crime No. 333 of 2020, under Sections - 302, 120-B, 328 I.P.C. and Section - 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station - Nakud, District - Saharanpur.
Contention, in brief, is that in this case, there is no substantive evidence against the appellant on account of fact that initially a G.D. entry was made alleging some facts that the deceased himself when doubted and then came back to house, his condition deteriorated, then he was taken to the hospital, where he died. Post-mortem examination was conducted on 12.8.2020 and on the same day F.I.R. was lodged and prior to death, the information given to the police station was taken down in the concerned general diary of the Police Station - Nakud, G.D. No. 4, dated 12.08.2020. It so happened that a case was falsely developed by the brother of the deceased and after the postmortem examination was conducted, F.I.R. was lodged. The reason being that prior to the post mortem examination, inquest was prepared, wherein the informant himself was an inquest witness, he did not spell even a single word either to Daroga Ji or in his statement alleging any positive fact against the present accused. 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 18.11.2020.
Sri Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail on several counts and has stated that it is a case of direct testimony of several witnesses, who witnessed the occurrence.
Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer for bail.
Learned counsel for the complainant an learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant. Auraiya
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 21.12.2020, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant - Raju 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.
It is made clear that observation made in this order shall not be construed to have any reflection on merits of the case and shall not prejudice the trial court while deciding the trial.
Order Date :- 15.7.2021 S Rawat
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant has made out a case for bail in an appeal against rejection of bail under the SC/ST Act and IPC.
Whether lack of substantive evidence and absence of criminal history justify granting bail.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Raju
State Of U.P.
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
