Allowed

Shweta v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2023CRLA/4106/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No. 4106 of 2022, the Allahabad High Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the rejection of her bail application. Citing parity with co-accused already on bail and the period of incarceration, the court set aside the lower court order and granted bail subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions.

Shweta Vs State of U.P. — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4106 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Shweta Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Singh,Dr. D.K. Tiwari,Pawnesh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed bail order dated 18.10.2022 and 21.09.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 5083 of 2022 and 37780 of 2022, relating to co-accused Sahadur Yadav alias Bahadur and Sunil Kumar Harijan, respectively. They are taken on record.

¶6

List revised. Shri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State are present. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2, though notice has been served upon him personally.

¶7

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 07.06.2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Varanasi, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the appellant’s Bail Application No. 2151 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 144 of 2022, under Sections 365, 376, 419, 420 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Lalpur Pandeypur, District Varanasi.

¶8

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

¶9

According to the prosecution case, co-accused Sanjay Rajbhar had illicit relation with the informant/victim on the pretext of marriage.

¶10

The victim had become pregnant from her relationship with Sanjay Rajbhar and when she gave birth to a child, Sanjay Rajbhar in collusion with the appellant-accused Shweta and co-accused Sunil Kumar Harijan and Sahadur Yadav alias Bahadur hatched conspiracy and in furtherance of the same, the appellant Shweta, on the pretext of getting the child vaccinated, stole the child on 15.01.2022 from Kabir Chaura Hospital and handed over to coaccused Sanjay Rajbhar and Sunil Kumar Harijan, who threw the child into a canal.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. It is submitted that the appellantaccused had never visited the hospital. It has been further submitted that the informant has mentioned in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she came to know the name of the appellant-accused after lodging of the FIR. Thus, the mentioning of the appellant-accused’s name in the written report has been done on the prompting of other persons. It has also been submitted that even according to prosecution case, the role of appellant accused is only that she removed the child of the informant from her custody and handed over to co-accused Sanjay Rajbhar who along with Sunil Kumar Harijan threw the child in the Canal. It has also been submitted that co-accused Sunil Kumar Harijan, whose role in the crime is greater than the appellant has been enlarged on bail by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.09.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37780 of 2022 entitling the appellant to be released on bail on the ground of parity. It is averred that the appellant has no criminal antecedents to her credit. It is in the last submitted that the appellant is in jail since 09.05.2022 and in case she is released on

¶12

bail she will not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant stating that the name of appellant-accused has been mentioned as Nanad of the co-accused Sanjay Rajbhar in the hospital record and the appellant, in conspiracy with Sanjay Rajbhar and other co-accused, took the child from the possession of informant and handed over to Sanjay Rajbhar, who along with another co-accused threw the child into a canal. But he could not dispute the aforesaid factum of the case as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶14

Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence, the fact that co-accused Sunil Kumar Harijan and Sahadur Yadav alias Bahadur have already been enlarged on bail, the period of incarceration undergone by the appellant, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶15

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed . The impugned order dated 07.06.2022 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set aside.

¶16

Let the appellant Shweta be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶17

(i) That the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶18

(ii) That the appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any

¶19

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶20

(iii) That after her release, the appellant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶21

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the appellant on bail.

¶22

It is made clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.

¶23

It is also 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/J.J.Board shall be absolutely free to arrive at its independent conclusion on the basis of evidence led, uninfluenced by any finding or observation whatsoever in this order.

¶24

Order Date :- 15.2.2023 Brijesh Maurya

¶25

Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shweta v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shweta v. State of U.P.

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

Lakkho Alias Lakhan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mrs. Farhana Parveen Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Prasad Mishra Vs State of U.P and Another

Kanhaiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kanhaiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another