AJAY JENTIBHAI BARIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for regular bail, in connection with the offence registered at C.R. No.11184004210237 of 2021 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(n), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of 'the Act' registered with Kadwal Police Station, Chota Udepur. Abovesaid Sections are mentioned as it is reflected from the copy of FIR at page 7.

(2.) Heard Mr.M.S.Padaliya, learned advocate for the appellant, Ms.J.K.Hingorani, learned advocate for Respondent No.2-original first informant as also Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State.

(3.) Mr.Padaliya, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that so far as offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there are no allegations against him. He has submitted that only a word stated in the First Information Report (for short, 'FIR') that the present applicant along with other co- accused has helped Shailesh the main accused, who is said to have some relationship with first informant, though disputed by her by way of filing appeal. He has further stated that for the offence committed on 8.5.2021, an 'FIR' has come to be filed on 27.06.2021 on the pretext that, pursuant to an application by the father of the first informant, the first informant and the accused were brought to the police station on 18.06.2021. Prior thereto, they entered into live in relationship agreement. However, at the relevant time, first informant and her relatives did not give complaint as it was settled between the parties in presence of Panchas of both the sides. However, according to submission of Mr.Padaliya, learned advocate for the appellant, since it is alleged that main accused did not fulfill the terms of the agreement and therefore, a complaint is filed late. The said reason, according to his submission, is not tenable. He has further submitted that even otherwise, the co-accused, who is said to have given shelter to the main accused is also enlarged on regular bail vide an order dated 20.09.2021 in Criminal Appeal No.1196 of 2021 and therefore, the present appellant, who is said to have helped the main accused providing support, may also be released on bail.