Allowed

Smt Rinki v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2021CRLA/2931/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act, the High Court set aside the Special Court order rejecting the appellant's bail application. Finding no convincing arguments for continued detention and noting a co-accused's similar bail status, the court allowed the appeal and ordered release on bail with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant ordered released on bail with personal bonds and two sureties.

Smt Rinki Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 50

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2931 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Smt Rinki Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akhil Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A (2) of SC/ST Act as Amended, has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the order dated 14.12.2020 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, Kannauj, in Session Trial No.753 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No.530 of 2020, under Sections 147, 149, 304 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Kannauj.

¶7

Contention, in brief, is that there is contradiction in the version of the informant regarding the incident seen by him. If one is believed to be true, another becomes false. Similarly circumstanced coaccused Nemi Chandra has already been admitted to bail by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.278 of 2021 on 19.07.2021. The case of the present applicant is identical to that of co-accused who has already been admitted to bail. In case the appellant is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconding or misusing the liberty of bail. The appellant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 05.09.2020.

¶8

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

¶9

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 has been rejected, impugned herein

¶10

this appeal.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.12.2020, rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶14

Let the accused-appellant Smt Rinki involved in the aforesaid case crime number for the aforesaid offences be released on bail on her furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the condition that appellant shall cooperate in the trial and will not jump the bail.

¶15

Order Date :- 27.8.2021 rkg

Smt Rinki v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rinki 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

Shiv Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kamal Singh Vs State of Up and Another

Bablu and 2 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Dori Lal Vs State of U.P.

Hari Mohan Vs State of Up and Anotehr

Ram Autar Vs State of Upa Dn Another