Allowed

Smt. Ruby Agrawal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2021CRLA/3007/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal challenging the rejection of bail. Finding that there was no direct evidence against the appellant and a possibility of false implication, the court set aside the lower court order and granted bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

The impugned bail rejection order dated 09.01.2020 was set aside, and the appellant was released on bail with two sureties.

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

¶1

Court No. - 88

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3007 of 2020

¶3

Appellant :- Smt. Ruby Agrawal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Swati Agrawal Srivastava,Ratnesh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ishwar Chandra Tyagi

¶4

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant-applicant, Sri Ishwar Chandra Tyagi, learned counsel for the complainant, Sri Ratnesh Nandan Singh, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

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- Smt. Ruby Agrawal with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 09.01.2020 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Amroha in Bail Application No. 2007 of 2019 (CNR No. UPJB010061152019) ( JO CODE UP01904) in Case Crime No. 213 of 2019 under Sections 364, 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (5) Ka SC/ST Act, P.S.- Rajabpur, District- Amroha.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the first information report, the husband of the informant got missing from the evening of 27.09.2019 and he, from his mobile number 6398522629 which was in his possession, has called the informant on her mobile number 8057514118 informing her about applicant's call in waiting and thereafter did not return home and when in the morning, she called her husband's mobile, the same was switched off and since then nothing was known about his whereabouts and he did not come back.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the appellantapplicant that the appellant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated for ulterior motive. It is also argued that as per the version of first information report itself, only missing report was got lodged sometimes earlier and as per the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., a missing report was lodged on 13.10.2019 with the police i.e. after 16 days of her husband going missing. It is further submitted that it is out of a sheer suspicion that the name of applicant has come to be taken in the first information report, as there is doubt in the mind of informant that the applicant had illicit relation with her deceased husband and so she might have engineered the commission of crime. It is further argued that there is no direct evidence to implicate the applicant in the crime in question. It is

¶9

also argued that there is no criminal history to the credit of applicant. It is further argued by the learned counsel that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no chance of any early conclusion of trial. The applicant is languishing in jail since 25.10.2019.

¶10

Though the appeal has been opposed vehemently by the learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant but he could not dispute the fact that there is no direct evidence against the applicant, except the phone call which has been received by the informant but thereafter also she waited for 15 days and thereafter, missing report was lodged. They further opposed the bail on the ground that co accused Veerpal and Vishesh who had earlier filed bail applications, their bail applications were rejected as it is on their pointing that the dead body of deceased was recovered. However, the complainant could not disclose any material to show that there was any direct involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime. The complicity on the basis of conspiracy, is though alleged, but no such intrinsic evidence except the call details of one Yogesh with the applicant has been placed before this Court so as to reject applicant's bail application.

¶11

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 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.

¶12

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.01.2020 rejecting the bail of the appellant is set aside.

¶13

Let the above named accused-appellant 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.

¶14

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 writing.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.1.2021 IrfanUddin

Smt. Ruby Agrawal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ruby Agrawal 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

Sandeep Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rvendra Singh @ Hariom Kachhi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ehsan Vs State of U.P.and Another

Omkar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nitin Patel Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rohit Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another