Dismissed

Smt. Radha Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 May 2023CRLA/1278/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act challenging a bail order, the Allahabad High Court found no evidence of bail misuse or witness tampering. The appeal was dismissed, but the trial court was directed to complete the trial within six months.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; bail remains operative; trial to conclude within six months.

Smt. Radha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116208 Reserved On:- 15.05.2023 Delivered On:- 24.05.2023

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1278 of 2022 Appellant :- Smt. Radha Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Subhash Chand Kanaujia,Shashi Ranjan Srivastava

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A., Raj Kumar Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Gopal Ji Khare, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Raj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 and the learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant, Smt. Radha Devi , to set aside the impugned order dated 31.01.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bhadohi has allowed the bail application of the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 in Case Crime No. 288 of 2021, under Sections- 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Bhadohi, District- Bhadohi.

¶8

There is allegation in the FIR that younger son of the informant, Arun Kumar, was fishing on 16.11.2021. Named accused, Karan Yadav, Hemant Yadav and Surendra Gaur, demanded fish from her son and when he did not gave them fish they started beating him with lathi danda and abusing him. He ran to his house. The aforesaid accused persons came to her house in Bolero car where her husband was sitting outside on the cot.

¶9

¶10

They drove the car over her husband and he suffered serious injuries on his legs and waist. Thereafter, they hurled caste related abuses and left the place.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of true implication. The Court below by the order dated 31.01.2022 wrongly directed that the named accused, Karan Yadav, Hemant Yadav, Surendra Gaur, be released on bail. He has submitted that the Court below has granted bail to the appellant when the doctor has found seven injuries on the body of the injured out of which three were serious. In the C.T. scan report, fracture were found on the right leg and third & fourth finger of the injured.

¶12

Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the court below ought not to have granted bail to the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4.

¶13

Counsel for the informant has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) vs. State of Gujarat, 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 868, Myakala Dharmarajam vs. State of Telangana, 2020 (0) Supreme(SC) 6 and Bhuri Bai vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2022 (0) Supreme (SC) 1161, and has submitted that bail once granted cannot be cancelled except on very strong ground like misuse of bail, tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice, legal infirmity in the bail order, etc.

¶14

Learned A.G.A has vehemently support the prayer for bail cancellation of the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4.

¶15

After hearing the rival contentions, this Court finds that there is nothing on record to indicate that there was any misuse of bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 to 4 by them nor there is any evidence of

¶16

¶17

tampering with the witnesses. Nothing has been brought on record regarding status of trial. It is not a fit case for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party no. 2 at this stage.

¶18

The criminal appeal is accordingly, dismissed .

¶19

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶20

Order Date :- 24.05.2023 Rohit

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ROHIT DAS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Radha Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Radha Devi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramveer Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Vs State of U.P.and Another

Manoj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raja @ Rajiv Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pratap Vs State of U.P. and Another