High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today annexing the copy of the charge-sheet is taken on record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Meena with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mainpuri and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.445 of 2024 under Sections 123, 70(1), 103(1), 238, 61(2), 351(2) Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and Section 3 (2) V S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the entire record.

4. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., which was lodged by the informant Shishupal Singh, is that on 19.11.2024 at about 12:00 noon, the named accused Prashant Yadav took the daughter of the informant Durga on his motorcycle to Dr. Mohan and then he further took her to his house where some intoxicant was administered to her when all the three were taking liquor. When the daughter of the informant did not return home, he started inquiring into the matter and the sleepers of the deceased was found in the office of the main accused Prashant Yadav and when he told this fact to accused Prashant Yadav, the present appellant Meena, on the instructions of her husband Prashant Yadav, disappeared the sleepers of the deceased from the office of his husband. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter.

5. 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. Alleged offences are not attracted against her. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that the appellant has absolutely no role in the commission of the crime, as alleged in the F.I.R. No one has seen the deceased with the appellant and the allegations have been made against named accused persons Prashant Yadav and his friend Dr. Mohan. Present appellant played absolutely no role in the commission of the crime of murder and rape of the daughter of the informant. It is also submitted that the I.O. of this case has collected absolutely no evidence against the present appellant and on the basis of false facts, he submitted the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Mainpuri. It is further submitted that 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 lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Appellant is languishing in jail since 9.12.2024 having no criminal antecedents to her credit.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that the present accused appellant very well participated in the commission of crime in conspiracy with her husband and other co- accused and after collecting ample and sufficient evidence against the appellant, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against her but however they could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that only the role of disappearing the sleepers of the deceased has been assigned to the appellant in the present matter.

7. 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.

8. 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, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned 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.

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

10. Let the appellant Meena involved in case crime no.445 of 2024 under Sections 123, 70(1), 103(1), 238, 61(2), 351(2) Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and Section 3 (2) V S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri 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. (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (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. (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.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today annexing the copy of the charge-sheet is taken on record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Meena with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mainpuri and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.445 of 2024 under Sections 123, 70(1), 103(1), 238, 61(2), 351(2) Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and Section 3 (2) V S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the entire record.

4. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., which was lodged by the informant Shishupal Singh, is that on 19.11.2024 at about 12:00 noon, the named accused Prashant Yadav took the daughter of the informant Durga on his motorcycle to Dr. Mohan and then he further took her to his house where some intoxicant was administered to her when all the three were taking liquor. When the daughter of the informant did not return home, he started inquiring into the matter and the sleepers of the deceased was found in the office of the main accused Prashant Yadav and when he told this fact to accused Prashant Yadav, the present appellant Meena, on the instructions of her husband Prashant Yadav, disappeared the sleepers of the deceased from the office of his husband. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter.

5. 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. Alleged offences are not attracted against her. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that the appellant has absolutely no role in the commission of the crime, as alleged in the F.I.R. No one has seen the deceased with the appellant and the allegations have been made against named accused persons Prashant Yadav and his friend Dr. Mohan. Present appellant played absolutely no role in the commission of the crime of murder and rape of the daughter of the informant. It is also submitted that the I.O. of this case has collected absolutely no evidence against the present appellant and on the basis of false facts, he submitted the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Mainpuri. It is further submitted that 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 lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Appellant is languishing in jail since 9.12.2024 having no criminal antecedents to her credit.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that the present accused appellant very well participated in the commission of crime in conspiracy with her husband and other co- accused and after collecting ample and sufficient evidence against the appellant, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against her but however they could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that only the role of disappearing the sleepers of the deceased has been assigned to the appellant in the present matter.

7. 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.

8. 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, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned 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.

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

10. Let the appellant Meena involved in case crime no.445 of 2024 under Sections 123, 70(1), 103(1), 238, 61(2), 351(2) Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and Section 3 (2) V S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri 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. (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (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. (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.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad