Court No. - 88

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3353 of 2020

Appellant :- Rajju Yadav

Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another

Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the

appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the

State respondent.

This Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set

aside the order dated 4th November, 2020 passed by Special

Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act/ Special Judge

(D.A.A.) Act, Chitrakoot in Bail Application No.- 722 of 2020

(Rajju Yadav vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No.-

56 of 2020 under Sections 452, 376-D, 392 I.P.C. and Sections

3(2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station-

Raipura, District- Chitrakoot.

As per the allegations made in the first information report while

the informant was sleeping along with her younger sister, the

name accused person broke into the house of the informant and

not only even outraged her modesty but also tried to commit

rape upon her. On this, the informant shouted and somehow she

managed to escape that the present appellant Rajju Yadav

entered the scene and asked Brijlal to leave the place.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it is all cock

and bull story narrated in the first information report. It is

argued that named accused person Brijlal is his driver who

drives his tractor and there was some dispute between the

informant's side and driver and in which the appellant

intervened to somehow pacify them but this was not taken

happily and the present first information report has come to be

lodged and he has been implicated in the present case. It is also

argued that in the first information report the informant has

stated that Brijlal had tried to commit rape whereas in her

statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that

both Brijlal and the present appellant have committed rape one

by one and also stole away her jewelry that was put on by her. It

is further argued that there is criminal history of only one case

which has come to be explained vide paragraph 18 of the

affidavit filed in support of the appeal. It is further submitted

that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there

is no chance of any early conclusion of trial. The appellant is

languishing in jail since 2nd September, 2020.

Learned Additional Government Advocate has though opposed

the bail of the appellant but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

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.

Nothing convincing has been argued on behalf of the

complainant/ State so as to justify and sustain the order passed

by the court below rejecting the bail application of the

appellant.

Thus, in view of the above 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 4th November, 2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is

set aside.

Let the accused-appellant, namely, Rajju Yadav 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 writ