Allowed

Nagina Yadav and Another v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC15 Dec 2021CRLA/2296/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against bail rejection under the SC/ST Act, the court, noting the absence of an eye-witness account and weak circumstantial evidence, allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted bail to the accused upon furnishing bonds and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the impugned order rejecting bail was set aside; accused released on bail upon furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each.

Nagina Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2296 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Nagina Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vibhav Prakash Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vijendra Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants; Sri Vijendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 27.07.2020, passed by learned Special Judge, Exclusive Special Court S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Gorakhpur, in Case Crime No.167 of 2020, under Section -302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station -Badahalganj, District - Gorakhpur , whereby bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶7

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits, against the FIR lodged on 07.06.2020, the appellant is in confinement since then; the appellant claims to have cooperated in the investigation. In any case he is not shown to have unduly evaded arrest; the appellant has no criminal history; chargesheet has already been submitted yet, trial has not commenced. Therefore, there is no hope of early conclusion of the trial; on prima facie basis, it has been submitted this is a case of circumstantial evidence which is wholly weak. Then, it has been submitted, there are three injuries recorded in the post mortem report, one of which is grievous. Against that, accusations have been made against entire family members of the present appellants namely four persons. Further, the evidence of last seen has emerged belatedly more than twenty days after the FIR came to be lodged. Those witnesses are stated to be chance witness set up by the prosecution. As to the statement of the first informant, as to knowledge gained by him from the deceased, it is stated to be purely hearsay. Also, it has been submitted, the allegations of violation of SC/ST Act are general and made to lend colour to the story.

¶8

On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant would submit that

¶9

at present chargesheet has emerged upon due investigation. The allegation made in the FIR has been corroborated by independent witnesses and therefore no case is made out for grant of bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is seen that there is no eye witness account available. The authors of the injury have not been ascribed, at the same time, four accused persons have been named with respect to three injuries recorded in the post mortem report. The appellant has become entitled to bail.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, at present, the order passed by the learned court below rejecting the bail application filed by the appellants, cannot be sustained.

¶13

Without drawing any inference as to facts, in view of the above noted facts & submissions and having regard to the status of the evidence, as has been shown to exist on record, let the appellants be enlarged on bail at this stage.

¶14

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 27.07.2020, rejecting the bail of the appellants is set aside.

¶15

Let the accused-appellants, namely, Nagina Yadav and Pintu Yadav, involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that appellants shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.

¶16

Order Date :- 15.12.2021 S.Chaurasia

Nagina Yadav and Another v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagina Yadav and Another v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rishi Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Sankatha Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ram Nagina 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Dilip @ Raseedul Haq Vs State of U.P.and Another

Ajay Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Hamza Vs State of U.P. and Another