Court No. - 93

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9231 of 2022

Appellant :- Jagpal Yadav

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellant,

Sri Laxman Prasad, learned A.G.A. for the State and

perused the record.

Notice on respondent no. 2 has been sufficiently served.

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order

dated 29.06.2022 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T.

Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Banda, whereby the

learned Judge has rejected the Bail Application No. 811 of

2022 (Jagpal Yadav Vs. State of U.P.) moved on behalf of

the appellant in Case Crime No. 639 of 2019 under

Sections 419, 420, 468, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)5A

of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nagar,

District- Banda.

According to prosecution case, a sale deed dated

12.03.2019 was executed in favour of the informant,

Shyam Narayan for the consideration of Rs.20,00,000/-

on behalf of owners, Munna Lal Sahu and Kamta Prasad.

Co-accused, Rahul Tiwari in conspiracy with the appellant

and Raj Narayan got the sale of plot no. 1227 area 4.772

hectare of Munna Lal Sahu and Kamta Prasad executed

in favour of informant, Shyam Narayan. In the sale deed,

photo of the appellant-accused was pasted in place of

Munna Lal Sahu and the Aadhar card of the appellant

was used for getting sale deed executed. Later on, it was

found that sale deed was executed by unauthorized

persons and the real owners asked the informant to pay

back the consideration of the sale deed. Bank cheque of

Rs.2,00,000/- was given by co-accused, Rahul Tiwari

which was dishonoured.

It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that :-

(i) the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present

case;

(ii) co-accused persons, Kamta Prasad, Rahul Tiwari and

Raj Narayan Singh, have already been enlarged on bail

by coordinate Benches of this Court vide orders dated

10.12.2021, 14.11.2022 and 12.10.2022 passed in

Criminal Appeal Nos. 3998 of 2021, 5 of 2022 and 1040

of 2022 respectively;

(iii) the appellant is in jail since 02.06.2022 and has no

criminal antecedents to his credit. In case he is enlarged

on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the

prayer for bail of the appellant. However, he could not

dispute the aforesaid factum of the case as argued by the

learned counsel for the appellant.

Considering the submissions made on behalf of the

learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.,

facts and circumstances of the case, fact that co-accused

persons, Kamta Prasad, Rahul Tiwari and Raj Narayan

Singh, have already been enlarged on bail by coordinate

Benches of this Court, period of incarceration undergone

by the appellant and the fact that appellant has no

criminal antecedents to his credit but without expressing

any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the

opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned

order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is

hereby set aside.

Let the appellant, Jagpal Yadav, be released on bail in

the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal

bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the

satisfaction of the court concerned with the following

conditions:-

(i) That the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious

disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court

unless his presence is exempted by the court.

(ii) That the appellant shall not directly or indirectly make

any inducement, threat or promise to any person

acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade

him from disclosing such facts to t