Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:141268

Court No. - 85

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5215 of 2023

Appellant :- Udairaj

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Abhishek Kumar Saroj,Dileep Kumar

Gautam,Kumar Parikshit

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Abhijeet Ghosh,Ashish Kumar

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of appellant is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ashish Kumar, learned

counsel for the opposite party no.2/informant, learned Additional

Government Advocate for the State of U.P. 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 with the prayer to set aside the bail

rejection order dated 29.04.2023 passed by learned Special Judge

(SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Bhadohi

Gyanpur in Bail Application No. 509 of 2023, arising out of Case

Crime No. 52 of 2022, under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC &

Section 3 (1) (r) & (s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Gyanpur,

District Bhadohi.

As per prosecution version, appellant executed a sale deed of a

plot in favour of informant Smt. Reeta Devi on 23.12.2020 with

certain boundaries. Thereafter, on 20.02.2021, appellant executed

another sale in favour of one Rammurti Gupta mentioning the

same boundaries. On protest, the informant was threatened and

also abused by her caste related words.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has

been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that

appellant has right over the land which he has sold the opposite

party no.2 and other person through sale deed. The copy of sale

deed of a plot executed in favour of Rammurti Gupta is annexed as

Annexure No.6 to the appeal which indicates that same consists

different boundaries. It is further submitted that informant has filed

a Civil Suit No. 647 of 2022 (Reeta Vs. Rammurti Gupta. It is

further submitted that mutation proceeding was done and the name

of the informant was also also mutated over the property executed

in his favour on 23.12.2020 through sale deed. The appellant does

not have any criminal history to his credit. Lastly, it is submitted

by learned counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the

appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with

the prosecution evidence. The appellant is languishing in jail since

11.04.2023 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse

the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the

case.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the

informant opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the

aforesaid factual aspects of the matter.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view

the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused,

severity of punishment, this Court is of the view that the appellant

has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the

bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and

illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is

liable to be allowed.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order

rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

Let the appellant, namely, Udairaj involved in the above Case be

released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties

each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned

subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release

order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution

witness.

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date

fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an