Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
Sazim – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the appellant and counter affidavit filed by the State are taken on record.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Sazim with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 7.9.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Court No.2, Shahjahanpur in Bail Application No.2563 of 2024.
3. The major lady prosecutrix of this case was eloped by the present accused appellant and on 1.6.2024 at about 6.00 pm they were held by the public. Police came into picture and the informant took back her daughter/ victim. Subsequently FIR was lodged by the informant/ mother of the victim. After investigation now the charge sheet has been submitted.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged
The court determined that the appellant's alleged actions did not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act, allowing bail based on the consensual nature of the relationship and errors in the trial C....
The court found that the appellant made a sufficient case for bail, emphasizing the consensual nature of the relationship and errors in the trial court's assessment.
The court found the trial court's rejection of bail to be flawed, allowing bail based on inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.
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 determined that the essential elements of the alleged offences under the SC/ST Act were absent, warranting the grant of bail to the appellants.
The court ruled that the rejection of a bail application must be based on substantiated evidence; insufficient evidence may warrant granting bail under relevant statutory provisions.
The court considered the stage of investigation and the period of incarceration in granting bail to the appellant.
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
