Allowed

Laxmi Dixit v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024CRLA/5796/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's criminal appeal against the rejection of bail. The court found no independent witness to the alleged cash transaction and noted the abuse occurred via telephone, not in public view. Consequently, the bail rejection order was set aside, and the appellant was granted bail with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant granted bail on furnishing a personal bond, subject to conditions: no tampering with evidence, no intimidation of witnesses, and appearance in trial court.

Laxmi Dixit vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 86

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5796 of 2024

¶3

Appellant :- Laxmi Dixit Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Abhinav Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶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 18.5.2024 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge Court No.2/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the entire record. Despite sufficient service of notice, none appears on behalf of the informant.

¶7

It is alleged in the F.I.R. that on persuasion of the present appellant and her husband Raghvendra Dixit Rupees Ten Lakhs were given by the informant and her husband, who belongs to SC/ST community, to the agent of the Post Office but no receipt or passbook was handed over to them and when they asked for the same, they were abused and threatened by the accused persons. FIR was lodged against the present appellant and her husband and investigation started which culminated into charge sheet against Raghvendra Dixit whereas investigation in respect of the present appellant is still going on.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She has not committed the present offence. It is further submitted that all the contents of the F.I.R. are wrong and as a matter of fact the informant Smt. Moni is the wife of one Sudhakar, who happens to be the servant of the informant in case crime no. 113 of 2023 under Sections 409, 420, 120-B IPC, P.S. Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar lodged against the appellant and her husband and on the instigation of the informant on the aforesaid case crime number, the present F.I.R. was lodged. The appellant has explained her criminal history and bail orders thereof are appended with the affidavit. It is also submitted that there is no evidence at all on record to show that any money was given by the informant to the

¶9

present appellant. The appellant is a lady and she in jail since 29.4.2023 i.e. for about one year and the alleged abusing and threatening made by the appellant and her husband on the basis of caste related name of the informant is said to be made on telephone, hence, no offence was committed in public view and on this ground it is also submitted that no offence under SC/ST Act is made out. The Court concerned while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is further submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. It is also submitted that the accused applicant has already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. - 2479 of 2024 by order dated 24.4.2024 for the offence under Section 409, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) da SC/ST Act but subsequently in the charge sheet Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act has been added, hence this appeal has been filed in the added Section i.e. Section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act. It is also submitted that prima facie no offence is made out under Section 3 (2)V SC/ST Act against the applicant.

¶10

On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is further submitted that in the statement of Sudharkar, the husband of the informant, and other persons this fact has been explained that Rupees Ten Lakhs were handed over to the present appellant and her husband by the informant.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and also the fact that no money on behalf of the informant or her husband was given to the accused appellant or her husband by way of any bank transaction or written instrument and whole delivery of money is said to be made in cash and there is no independent witness of the same and criminal history of two cases against the appellant has been explained sufficiently, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶13

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

¶14

Let the appellant Laxmi Dixit involved in Case Crime No. 94 of 2023, under Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act, P.S. Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond 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.

¶15

(i). The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶16

(ii). The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶17

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

¶18

(iv). The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶19

(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.

¶20

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

¶21

Order Date :- 29.8.2024 Fhd

¶22

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Laxmi Dixit v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi Dixit 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Alha Yadav @ Shyam Yadav vs State of Up and 3 Others

Titu @Rajendra vs Smt Pinki

Guddu Singh vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt Kirti Jaiswal vs State of Up and Another

Nipin Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Kavita Srivastava vs State of U.P. and Another