Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179866

Court No. - 85

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7334 of 2023

Appellant :- Guddu Alias Avasan

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Singh,Lalit Kumar

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shiv Om Vikram Singh Chauhan

with

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7338 of 2023

Appellant :- Arvind Kumar @ Bhure

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Dharmendra Singh,Lalit Kumar

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shiv Om Vikram Singh Chauhan

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

Rejoinder affidavits filed on behalf of appellant in Criminal

Appeal No. 7334 of 2023 is taken on record. Rejoinder affidavit

filed on behalf of appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 7338 of 2023

is also taken on record.

Since both the aforesaid appeals arises out of same case crime

number and therefore, are being heard and decided together.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Shiv Om Vikram

Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the informant/opposite party

no. 2, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of

U.P. and perused the record.

These criminal appeals under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been

preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set aside the bail

rejection orders dated 28.06.2023 and 06.07.2023 passed by

learned Special Judge (SC/STAct), Auraiya in Bail Application

Nos. 1130 of 2023 and 1218 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime

No. 54 of 2023, under Sections 427, 436, 504 IPC & Sections 3 (1)

da, Dha and 3 (2) (5) of SC/ST, Police Station Erwa Katara,

District Auraiya.

As per the prosecution version on 05.04.2023 at around 12.50 am

in the night, appellants alongwith other co-accused set ablaze the

house of informant due to which the household articles of the

informant were damaged. There was pre-existing enmity on the

basis of incident dated 02.04.2023.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellants are

innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is

further submitted that informant in his statement recorded under

Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that at the time of incident when his

house was set ablaze by the appellants, he was sleeping inside his

house. It is also submitted that witnesses Shakuntala and Asharam

at the time of their statements recorded during investigation

referred the date of incident 06.04.2023 which is itself

contradictory to the date of incident mentioned in the F.I.R. It is

further submitted that one of the appellant Arvind Kumar has also

lodged an F.I.R. against informant Sushil Kumar under Section

376 I.P.C. and 5M/6 of POCSO Act in which informant has been

granted bail. It is also submitted that there are material

contradictions in the statements of eye witnesses and the

informant and the present F.I.R. has been lodged as a counter blast

of the case crime No. 55 of 2023. The appellants do not have any

criminal history to their credit. Lastly, it is submitted by learned

counsel for the appellants that there is no chance of the appellants

fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the

prosecution evidence. The appellants are languishing in jail since

27.06.2023 and in case they are released on bail, they 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 contending that witnesses

have supported the prosecution story in their statements recorded

during investigation.

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 appellants

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

the bail applications. The impugned orde