In this criminal appeal against a bail rejection order, the Hon'ble Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 29.11.2019. The Court held that the appellant made out a case for bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.
Impugned order rejecting bail is set aside; appellant is released on 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. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 568 of 2020
Appellant :- Nitin Patel Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Manvendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shiv Shankar Kaithal
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Sri Manvendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri S.S.Kaithal,learned counsel for the complainant, learned AGA 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 has been preferred by the appellant- Nitin Patel with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 29.11.2019 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Fatehpur, in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 4301 of 2019, arising out of case crime no. 39 of 2019, under Sections 366,302,201 IPC and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, 1989 P.S. Lalauli, District Fatehpur .
As per allegations in the first information report, the dead body of the deceased/victim Ruchi aged about 23 years was found lying under a bridge and was identified by the informant as his daughter on the basis of her name inscripted on her hand and he has come to implicate the appellant on the basis that in the year 2016 the deceased Ruchi had been enticed away by the accused appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant argues that accepting the fact that earlier deceased Ruchi had eloped with the appellant and stayed with him there is no other direct evidence to make charge of an office complained of under various sections in which the first information report has been registered. He has further relied upon statement of the deceased given to the police that when the first information was lodged in case crime no 297 of 017 under section 363, 366 IPC in which she had categorically stated that she had voluntarily chosen to accompany the present appellant and that she had even persuaded her mother sister's daughter Surekha and it is on that basis a final report had come to be given by the police under Section 173 Cr.P.C. It is thus argued that much earlier she had come back to her home and the appellant has been implicated merely on the basis of suspicion as there is no direct evidence as such. He further submitted that the appellant has no past criminal history and he is in jail since 19.09.2019. It is further submitted that the co-accused Lalu Patel @ Ajay Bahadur has already been granted by this Court vide order dated 06.01.20121 passed in Criminal Appeal No.4437 of 2019. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant-applicant that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no chance of any early conclusion of trial.
Though the appeal has been opposed vehemently by the learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the complainant but they 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 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 29.11.2019 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 :- 6.1.2021 Sanjeev
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant has made out a case for bail despite a prior rejection order arising from a case involving offence under Sections 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act and Sections 201, 302 IPC.
Whether the grounds for setting aside the bail rejection order are supported by the facts and circumstances of the case.
Whether the appellant should be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.
Nitin Patel
State Of U.P. And Anr
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
