Allowed

Sunita Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2024CRLA/8207/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the Criminal Appeal against an order rejecting bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Finding the Trial Court erred in refusing bail, the Court set aside the impugned order, quashed the lower order rejecting bail, and directed the release of the appellant on bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail set-aside; appellant granted release on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties; specific conditions imposed.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:169000

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8207 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Sunita Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Pratibha Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶6

List revised. Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no.2/victim.

¶7

Heard Ms. Pratibha Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

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 judgment and order dated 06.08.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kaushambi in Case Crime No. 188 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC and 3(2)(v-a), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Pashshim Sharira, District Kaushambi and pleased to release the appellant on bail in the aforesaid offence, during the pendency of trial.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been falsely implicated due to party bandi. No specific role has been assigned to the appellant. The injuries caused are simple in nature except the injury caused to Abhishek Kumar and as per X-ray report, there is fracture on his left hand. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the appellant.

¶10

Appellant is languishing in jail since 06.8.2024, having only one criminal history which has been explained in para-8 of the memo of the appeal. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶11

On the other hand, learned learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶12

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.

¶13

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The learned trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶14

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

¶15

Let the appellant Sunita Singh involved in Case Crime No. 188 of 2023, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 IPC and 3(2)(v-a), 3(1) (s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Pashshim Sharira, District Kaushambi be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two 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.

¶16

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

¶17

The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 23.10.2024

¶23

Monika

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sunita Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Singh 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

Smt Meena Devi vs State of Up and 4 Others

Devanand Lodhi vs State of U.P.

Tabrez Alam vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jitendra Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhanvar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another