Allowed

Archana Singh @ Pinki Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2024CRLA/1167/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed an appeal filed under the SC/ST Act against a bail denial order.Considering arguments regarding the admissibility of co-accused statements under the Evidence Act, the court set aside the impugned order and granted bail to the appellant with stringent conditions.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned bail denial order; granted bail to appellant on personal bond and sureties subject to eight specific conditions.

Archana Singh @ Pinki Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38559

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1167 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Archana Singh @ Pinki Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mahendra Pratap Singh,Raj Deo Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anubhav Awasthi,Manoj Kumar Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State as also Sri Anubhav Awasthi, counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 16.03.2024, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar, in Bail Application No. 288/2024, arising out of F.I.R/ Case Crime No. 408 of 2023, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 364 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Rajesultanpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

While pressing the present appeal, counsel for the appellant submits that a perusal of the prosecution story from its very inception clearly indicates that no offence has been committed by the appellant who is a lady about 25 years old and who is in jail since 29.01.2024 having no criminal history.

¶9

In continuation, it is stated that a conjoint reading of the statement of the informant and the statement of co-accused namely Durgesh, which is annexed as Annexure No.1 to the counter affidavit filed by the complainant, makes the points crystal clear that the deceased and co-accused Durgesh were having affair and on account of some misunderstanding, Durgesh committed crime and co-accused Durgesh Pal was engaged as driver by the appellant and after committing the crime, co-accused Durgesh took advice from the appellant and in response, the appellant advised him to hide the body of deceased.

¶10

It is further stated that in view of the aforesaid, in fact, no

¶11

evidence is available against the appellant as this statement of the co-accused is not admissible evidence. In this regard, reference has been made to Section 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act , 1972.

¶12

It is also stated that initially the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons and during investigation, the name of the coaccused surfaced and based upon the statement of the coaccused, the appellant has been implicated.

¶13

It is further stated that in the facts of the case aforesaid, the appeal is liable to be allowed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

Learned A.G.A. as also counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the aforesaid but could not dispute the contention made by counsel for the appellant.

¶15

It is further stated that in the facts of the case aforesaid, the appeal is liable to be allowed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Having considered the submissions advanced by counsels for the parties, including the contents of F.I.R., statements of coaccused, as also the provisions as envisaged under Section 24 to 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, this Court is of the view that the present appeal is liable to be allowed and impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid, order dated 16.03.2024, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar, in Bail Application No. 288/2024, arising out of F.I.R/ Case Crime No. 408 of 2023, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 364 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Rajesultanpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar, is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed.

¶18

Let appellant Archana Singh @ Pinki Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions:-

¶19

(i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶20

(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶21

(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶22

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.(v) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶23

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

¶24

(vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶25

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶26

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass order(s) in accordance with law.

¶27

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶28

Order Date :- 21.5.2024 (Manoj K.)

¶29

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Archana Singh @ Pinki Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Archana Singh @ Pinki Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prins Singh @ Simpu Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Dpett. Lko. and Another

Gannu Alias Raju Chauhan Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Mukhtar Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Kallu @ Anshuman vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Meera Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Akhilesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another