Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV
Balwant Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial procedural posture and context. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the alleged incident and fir. (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments on bail application by both parties. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's analysis and reasoning for bail. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. conclusion and conditions for bail. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.
1. In this case notice has already been served upon the informant and also counter affidavit and supplementary affidavits have been filed.
2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant- Balwant Pandey to set aside the order dated 12.05.2025 in Bail Application No. 686 of 25 and to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 78 of 2025, under Sections 191 (2), 191(3), 190, 115(2) 117(2), 352, 351(2), 118(1), 109 BNS & Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State, Sri Mahesh Kumar Shukla for respondent no. 2 and perused the entire record.
4. According to the prosecution case, the FIR of the incident has been lodged on the same day stating therein that when the inform
The court held that a denial of bail must be supported by substantive evidence, and without such evidence, particularly under the SC/ST Act, bail should not be denied.
The court established that a lack of substantial evidence and the presumption of innocence are critical in considering bail applications under the SC/ST Act.
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 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 granted bail due to insufficient evidence from hostile witnesses and the potential for false implications, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial.
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.
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
