Allowed

Vinita v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2024CRLA/4839/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act, setting aside the Special Judge's bail rejection order. The court noted the Special Judge overlooked factors including co-accused bail status and lack of corroborating evidence, directing the appellant's release with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail set-aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two heavy sureties.

Vinita vs State of Up and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:144217

¶2

Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4839 of 2024 Appellant :- Vinita Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Adil Jamal,Shabeh Jamal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the entire record.

¶5

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 28.03.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sambhal at Chandausi.

¶6

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case there is allegation that the victim was enticed away by appellant Vineeta and co-accused Kaptan and thereafter she was got married with Sripal who was an aged person. The victim was aged about 17 years and was going from Panipat to Raebareli and she was caught by the aforesaid co-accused persons from Delhi Railway Station and then she was administered an intoxicating drug and was taken to Budaun for the purposes of trafficking from where she was saved by the police. The police had shown false recovery of the victim from the motorcycle of appellant Sripal though nothing as such happened. The victim herself has also not stated any such incident in her statement as recorded before the learned Magistrate disclosing the fact that she was sold by the present appellant. During medical examination no any injury either external or internal was found on her person. It also shows that no any force or violence was used by the appellant. The appellant is languishing in jail since 01.11.2023. Co-accused Rakesh, Kali @ Kaliya @ Kalicharan and Sripal have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and the case of present appellant is on similar footing. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the amended provisions of SC/ST Act. All these facts were not taken into consideration by the learned Special Judge while rejecting the bail which cannot be said to be lawful, therefore requested to set it aside and allow the appeal.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record, the allegations made in the F.I.R., the period appellant remained in jail as well as the fact that the coaccused have already been enlarged on bail and the case of the present appellant is also on similar footing, it appears that the learned Special Judge has not taken into consideration all these facts while considering bail, therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court cannot be said to be lawful and is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶9

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶10

Let the appellant- Vinita involved in Case Crime No.594 of 2023 under Sections 328, 366A, 370(4) I.P.C. and 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Bahjoi, District Sambhal be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶11

The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶12

The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶13

The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶14

The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶15

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.

¶16

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.9.2024 Ashok Gupta

¶18

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

Vinita v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinita v. State of Up 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

Rama Shankar Alias Ram Shankar vs State of U.P. and Another

Avdhesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rahat Ali vs State of Up and Another

Aryan Gupta vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt Laxmi Devi and 02 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Reeta Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. and Another