In cases under the SC/ST Act, bail may be granted if the accused can show that they have made out a case for bail based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offense, the evidence, and other relevant factors.

Court No. - 93

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7994 of 2022

Appellant :- Mahesh Dhimar

Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Narendra Kumar

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

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

appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material

available on record.

This is second criminal appeal seeking bail. The first appeal

was rejected by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide

order dated 24.12.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 226 of

2021. 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

06.10.2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Jhansi,

whereby the learned Judge has rejected the bail application

moved on behalf of the appellant in Second Bail Application

No. 1975 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 46 of 2021,

under Sections 376, 452, 323, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)5 of

SC/ST Act, police station Uldan, District Jhansi.

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

applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the

present case due to enmity. It is further submitted that medical

examination report of the victim has not supported the sexual

assault. It is submitted that the informant, Ramcharan Baran,

husband of the victim, has not supported the prosecution case

and has turned hostile. It has also been submitted that the

victim, PW-2, has also not supported the prosecution case and

turned hostile. It is stated that apart from these two witnesses,

the witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet, namely, Rajendra

Barar and Balla @ Balle are not the eye witness of the incident.

It is averred that the appellant-accused has no criminal

antecedents to his credit. It is in the last submitted that the

appellant-accused is in jail since 22.11.2020 and in case he is

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

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

bail of the appellant, but could not dispute the aforesaid factum

of the case as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.

Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties,

facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence,

evidence appearing in the case, the fact that the informant (PW-

1) and the victim (PW-2) have not supported the prosecution

case and turned hostile, the fact that the appellant is in jail since

22.11.2020, the fact that there is no likelihood of trial to be

concluded in the near future, 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

dated 06.10.2022 rejecting the bail application of the appellant

is hereby set aside.

Let the appellant Mahesh Dhimar, 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 inevitable.

(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 the court or to any police officer or tamper with the

evidence.

(iii) That after his release, the appellant shall not involve in any

criminal activity.

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be

verified by court concerned before the release of the appellant

on bail.

It is made clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions

mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel

the bail of the appellant.

The observations made in this c