Criminal Appeals Court allowed an appeal challenging a bail rejection order under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court set aside the order and granted bail with conditions.
Impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties, conditioned to cooperate in trial and not jump bail.
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. - 378 of 2021
Appellant :- Samar Pal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajendra Kumar Singh,Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State 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 with the prayer to set aside the order dated 19.12.2020 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Amroha in Bail Application No.2009 of 2020 CNR No. UPJB010045742020 arising out of case crime no.438 of 2020, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC and Section 3(2) (Va) SC/ST Act, P.S. Gajraula, District Amroha.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the appellant. It is case of circumstantial evidence case and chain of circumstance is no complete and applicant has no concern with the offence in question. It is further submitted that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no chance of any early conclusion of trial. The appellant is languishing in jail since 31.07.2020.
Learned Additional Government Advocate has though opposed the bail of the appellant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
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 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 19 .12. 2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.
Let the accused-appellant, namely, Samar Pal 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.
Order Date :- 22.7.2021/Raj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to bail pending trial in a trial under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(Va) SC/ST Act.
Whether the impugned bail rejection order should be set aside.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Samar Pal
State of U.P.
Another
Arvind Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
