Allowed

Maya @ Sandhya and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2023CRLA/7881/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal was filed against the rejection of a bail application. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order, and granted bail based on the absence of FIR names, lack of eyewitnesses, and reliance solely on confessional statements. The trial was remanded.

What did the court decide?

The appellants are released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each, subject to specified conditions.

Maya @ Sandhya and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7881 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Maya @ Sandhya And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Giri,Toshiva Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Raghvendra Prakash

¶4

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and perused the material available on record.

¶6

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 12.09.2022 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Azamgarh whereby the learned Judge has rejected the Bail Application No. 3713 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 03 of 2022, under Sections 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, police station Kandhrapur, district Azamgarh.

¶7

According to prosecution case, deceased Kamlesh Ram, who resided in paternal house at Govindpur, police station Tahwarpur, District Azamgarh, informed his brother/informant Ramesh Ram, who is the resident of Akhapur, police station Kandhrapur, Azamgarh on 02.01.2022 that he is going to arrive at his residence. When he did not reach to the residence of informant till night, informant rang his brother Kamlesh Ram on his mobile no. 7309700885 but he did not connect with the mobile number of Kamlesh Ram. On 03.01.2022 in the morning, the dead body of Kamlesh Ram was found adjacent to Visauli road in the field of Suresh Yadav. His cycle was also lying there. The first information

¶8

report was registered on 03.01.2022 at 14.04 o'clock against unknown accused under Section 302 IPC. On 03.01.2022, Smt. Rinku Devi, wife of deceased Kamlesh Ram in her statement under Section 161 CrPC told that her husband was used to have conversation with Maya Prajapati, resident of Akhapur, and due to this activities, there was quarrel with her husband. On 03.01.2022, Haribansh Prajapati, maternal uncle of appellant accused Hariom Prajapati, in his statement under Section 161 CrPC stated that the appellant accused Hariom Prajapati confessed before him on 02.01.2022 at 9.00 am that as Kamlesh Ram did not stop having conversation with his wife Maya Prajapati, he became angry with him. The deceased was called by her wife Maya Prajapati and both of them strangulated Kamlesh Ram and killed him. The mobile no.7880313645 of deceased Kamlesh Ram and mobile number 8528856057 of Maya Prajapati are recovered from the possession of Maya Prajapati. Call details of these two mobile numbers were collected which showed that appellant Maya Prajapati had conversation with deceased Kamlesh Ram on 02.01.2022 from 11.11 a.m. to 18.09 p.m.

¶9

It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of their confessional statement and planted recovery of mobile phones. It is also submitted that the appellants are not named in the FIR. It is also submitted that since appellant Maya Prajapati and deceased Kamlesh Ram were the same village, conversation on mobile is natural. Moresoever the contents of the conversation has not been ascertained by the prosecution. It is further submitted that the appellants have no criminal history to their credit. It is in the last submitted that the appellants are in jail since 05.01.2022 and, in case they are released on bail they will

¶10

not misuse the liberty of bail.

¶11

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the appellants, but could not dispute the aforesaid factum of the case as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶12

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, the fact that the appellants are not named in the FIR and there is no eye-witness of the incident, the fact that the appellants have been made accused on the basis of confessional statement made to his maternal uncle Haribansh Prajapati, the fact that the contents of alleged conversation between the appellant Maya Prajapati and deceased Kamlesh Ram having not been ascertained, the period of incarceration undergone by the appellants accused, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail.

¶13

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 12.09.2022 rejecting the bail application of the appellants is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let the appellants Maya @ Sandhya and Hariom Prajapati 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:(i) That the appellants shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable. (ii) That the appellants 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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 appellants.

¶18

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

¶19

Order Date :- 8.2.2023

¶20

Pratima

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Maya @ Sandhya and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maya @ Sandhya and Another 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

Avaneesh Singh Vs State of U.P.and Another

Uttam Dubey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atal Joshi Alias Awadh Bihari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Gunja Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home and Another

Bablu Alias Amit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lavkush Nishad Vs State of U.P. and Another