Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Archana Singh @ Pinki Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2024
Decided On : 21-05-2024
BAIL - SC/ST Act - The court granted bail to the appellant, Archana Singh, under Section 14-A (2) of the SC/ST Act, emphasizing the lack of admissible evidence against her. The court interpreted the statements of co-accused as insufficient for conviction, referencing Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act, which govern the admissibility of confessions and statements. The decision to grant bail was influenced by the absence of a criminal history and the nature of the evidence presented.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Archana Singh, was accused in a case involving serious charges under IPC and the SC/ST Act. She had been in jail since January 29, 2024, and claimed no involvement in the crime, asserting that the co-accused acted independently due to a personal affair with the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case relied heavily on the statements of the co-accused, which were deemed inadmissible as evidence. The court noted that the initial FIR was against unknown persons, and the appellant's implication was based on weak evidence.
Issues: Whether the appellant should be granted bail given the lack of admissible evidence and her lack of a criminal history.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of credible evidence against the appellant, particularly the inadmissibility of the co-accused's statements, warranted the granting of bail. The court emphasized the importance of the legal provisions regarding evidence in determining the outcome.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was granted bail under specific conditions to ensure cooperation with the trial process.
JUDGMENT :
(Saurabh Lavania, J.) :
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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. It is further stated that in view of the aforesaid, in fact, no 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.
6. It is also stated that initially the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons and during investigation, the name of the co-accused surfaced and based upon the statement of the co-accused, the appellant has been implicated.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Having considered the submissions advanced by counsels for the parties, including the contents of F.I.R., statements of co-accused, 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.
11. 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.
12. 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:-
(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.
(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).
(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 di
The court has the discretion to allow an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ ST Act and grant bail to the accused, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case.
The court established that the credibility of allegations in sexual offense cases must be thoroughly examined, particularly in light of the victim's age and the context of the relationship, to determ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of corroboration in the medical report, absence of evidence regarding the alleged video clip, and the appellant's detention period....
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence from hostile witnesses and the potential for false implications, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial.
Bail is a rule and rejection is an exception, and the decision to grant bail in non-bailable offenses should consider the nature of the offense, character of the accused, and the likelihood of the ac....
The court considered the false implication of the appellant and the existence of a compromise as key factors in setting aside the order rejecting the bail application and ordering the release of the ....
The court ruled that the denial of bail was erroneous due to insufficient evidence supporting the prosecution's case, allowing the appellant to be released on bail under specific conditions.
The court emphasized the principle of parity in bail applications, allowing bail when co-accused with similar roles have been granted bail, highlighting the absence of evidence suggesting tampering.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
