Allowed

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

Allahabad HC25 May 2023CRLA/2910/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal appeal against the rejection of bail in a murder case involving SC/ST atrocities. The single judge held the lower court failed to properly consider facts and granted bail citing jail overcrowding and the appellant's limited role.

What did the court decide?

The order of rejection of bail dated 10.03.2023 set aside; Smt. Beena released on bail with personal bond and two sureties on conditions including non-interference with witnesses and presence in court

Smt. Beena Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:117434

¶3

Reserved On:- 16.05.2023 Delivered On:- 25.05.2023

¶4

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2910 of 2023 Appellant :- Smt. Beena Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Manoj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth, J.

¶6

Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.

¶7

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned order dated 10.03.2023 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gautam Budh Nagar has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by her in Case Crime No. 85 of 2023, under Sections- 302, 201, 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Bisrakh, District- Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶8

There is allegation in the FIR that the informant belongs to the schedule caste. His brother, Ranjit, used to do the job of ironing clothes. The informant came to know that he used to talk to the daughter of coaccused, Rambabu Dubey, for about last seven years. The mother of Neha, Smt. Beena, the appellant, her father, Rambabu Dubey, and brother, Shivam, used to keep him in their house on the lure of marriage with Neha. Whatever his brother earned was taken by them. His brother had got jewellery of 2-3 lakhs prepared for Neha. Co-accused, Manish, who is mama of Neha was also residing in the same lane. The informant

¶9

¶10

expressed apprehension that they have caused murder of his brother, Ranjit.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that initially missing report was lodged by the informant regarding his brother on 24.11.2022 stating that he went from his house on 13.06.2022 but did not returned. On 26.01.2023 an unknown dead body was recovered which was reduced to a skeleton only. The informant has identified the recovered body from belt and finger ring found with the skeleton as that of his brother. He has submitted that there is no eyewitness of the incident. It is a case of circumstantial evidence.

¶12

Counsel for the appellant submits that in the confessional statement of Neha, she has admitted that deceased was pressurising her to marry. He was earlier called by co-accused to her house and beaten but he was not mending his way. She admitted that the appellant and Neha caught hold of the hands of the deceased, when her brother, Shubham, father, Ram Babu Dubey and mama, Manish caused his murder. He has submitted that even in the confessional statements, the role of causing murder of the deceased has not been assigned to the appellant. She is mother of co-accused, Neha and is languishing in jail since 06.02.2023 and has no criminal history to her credit.

¶13

Learned A.G.A has opposed the submissions made on behalf of counsel for the appellant and has placed before this Court. The case diary prepared by the investigating officer wherein the confessional statement of the accused have been recorded. In the statements they have stated that the deceased had developed relationship with their daughter, Neha and he had taken some obscene photographs of Neha. He used to threaten her of making the same viral. Appellant and co-accused did not wanted to marry

¶14

¶15

Neha to the deceased because of difference of caste. They have admitted murdering the deceased to get rid of him.

¶16

It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the Court below has not properly considered the facts of the case. The role of catching hold has been assigned to the appellant and that too in confessional statement of coaccused, Neha. Hence, in view of above consideration, the order of rejection of bail passed by the court below dated 10.03.2023 is, hereby, set aside.

¶17

Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above, finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant; keeping in view uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; appellant being under-trial having fundamental right to speedy; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Let appellant, Smt. Beena be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶19

(i) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(ii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶21

¶22

(iii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

¶23

(iv) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in the trial court.

¶24

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel.

¶25

(vi) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶26

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. If in the opinion of the trial court that absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed in accordance with law.

¶27

The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously in accordance with law after the release of the appellant, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶28

It is made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected by anything said in this order.

¶29

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶30

Order Date :- 25.05.2023

¶31

Rohit

¶32

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Beena 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

Manoj Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

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

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Vs State of U.P. and Another