Allowed

Shiv Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2023/35/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal challenging the bail rejection in a case under SC/ST Act and IPC. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the rejection order, and released the appellant on bail citing her co-accused's bail status and lack of criminal history.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 22.11.2022 rejecting bail was set aside. The appellant was released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Shiv Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 35 of 2023

¶3

Appellant :- Shiv Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dr. Surendra Kumar Misra,Avnish Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanjay Singh Chauhan

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, Sri Sagir Ahmad, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Sanjay Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, Sri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Instant criminal appeal under section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been filed challenging the order dated 22.11.2022 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sitapur in Bail Application No.521 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.188 of 2022 under Sections 306 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Atariya, District Sitapur. It has also been prayed that the appellant-applicant may be released on bail in the aforesaid sections during the pendency of trial.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and she has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. The story of the prosecution narrated in the F.I.R. is concocted and baseless. He further added that F.I.R. has been lodged after a direction issued on an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. instituted by the opposite party no.2/complainant. Identically situated co-accused Akhilesh Kumar @ Akhilesh Bhargaw has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.741 of 2023, vide order dated 31.1.2023. The appellant is seeking party of the order aforesaid. The appellant is a law abiding citizen who is languishing in jail since 20.9.2022. There is no previous criminal history of appellantapplicant, which has been mentioned in para 19 of the bail application. There is no possibility of conclusion of the trial in near future. In case she is granted bail, she will not misuse the liberty and will co-operate in the trial proceedings.

¶8

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have opposed the contention of the appellant-applicant but they could not dispute the fact that the identically situated co-accused, namely, Akhilesh Kumar has

¶9

already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the appellant is languishing in jail since 20.9.2022; identically situated coaccused has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court; and there is no previous criminal history of appellant-applicant, which has been mentioned in para 19 of the bail application.

¶11

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the side and the facts that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed and the order dated 22.11.2022 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sitapur in Bail Application No.521 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No.188 of 2022 under Sections 306 I.P.C. and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Atariya, District Sitapur, is hereby set aside.

¶12

Let the applicant-appellant, Shiv Devi, involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶13

The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶14

The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶15

The applicant-appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶16

The applicant-appellant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless her personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶17

It is further observed that any of the findings recorded hereinabove will have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

¶18

Order Date :- 16.2.2023 Ram Murti

¶19

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shiv Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. 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

Rajni Tripathi and Anr. Vs State of U.P. through Learned Principal Judge Family COURTandA

Mohd. Ahmad @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.and Anr.

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Sandeep @ Sandeep Lonia Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt., Lko. and 2 Others

Mohd. Saif Khan Vs State of U.P. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Dharmendra Kumar Sonkar Vs State of U.P. Thru.Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs and Another