Dismissed

Sunita Alias Savita Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2021CRLA/232/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenged a bail order under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act. The court examined allegations of human trafficking and trafficking for prostitution. The court refused the plea for quashing and dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant did not deserve sympathy due to the nature of the allegations against her.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 02.01.2021 is refused; the criminal appeal stands dismissed.

Sunita Alias Savita Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 232 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Sunita Alias Savita Rajbhar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Anuj Prajapati Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ram Anuj Prajapati, learned counsel for the appellant through virtual mode, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

The present appeal is being filed by the appellant u/s 14-A (2) of SC/ST Act challenging the order dated 02.01.2021 passed learned Special/Exclusive Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi while deciding the Fist Bail Application No. 3870 of 2020 arising out of case crime no. 74 of 2020, u/s 323, 504, 506, 370, 372, 373, 376, 342, 34 IPC and section 3(1)(w) & 3(1)(S) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sections 3, 4, 5, 6 & 9 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, P.S. Lalpur Pandeypur, District Varanasi.

¶7

Submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the present FIR was lodged by the victim herself against six named accused persons including the appellant. The allegation of the FIR that victim's husband was habitual drunker and used to misbehave with her quite often. Exploiting this situation, one Naveen Jaiswal allured her and taken her to some unknown destination where she met with present appellant Sunita Alias Savita Rajbhar. During the investigation, it is borne out that the victim was sold to Ram Kripal Yadav for Rs. 50,000/- and the present appellant is its beneficiary. A human being is being sold and purchased by two individuals. This by itself is not only derogatory but against all the norms of civilized society. The Court do not subscribe to this action and the appellant deserves no sympathy. There is specific allegation in the statement of the victim recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Thus, the prayer for quashing the impugned order dated 02.01.2021 is hereby refused and accordingly, the present criminal appeal stands dismissed .

¶8

Order Date :- 8.7.2021 Nisha

Sunita Alias Savita Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Alias Savita Rajbhar 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

Shamshad @ Kaliya Vs State of U.P.

Shahnawaj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atul Yadav @ Mintu Vs State of U.P.

Shivsagar Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Om Prakash Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P.