Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV
Krishna Rastogi – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the criminal appeal and allegations. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. court's careful review of submissions. (Para 3 , 7) |
| 3. appellant's innocence vs. prosecution's case. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. basis for granting bail to the appellant. (Para 8) |
| 5. court's order for bail and conditions imposed. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.
1. In this case notice has already been served upon the informant.
2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant-Krishna Rastogi to set aside the order dated 10.04.2025 in Bail Application No. 1837 of 25 and to release him on bail in Case Crime No.564 of 2024 under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 191(2), 190 and section 61(2) of BNS, section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act and Section 35 Arms Act, P.S. Dhampur, District Bijnor.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned AGA for the State-respondent no.1 and perused the entire record.
4. According to the prosecution case, the incident took place on 16.12.2024 and the FIR of this incident has been lodged on the same day stating therein that on the day of incident appellant along with other co- accused p
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 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 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's decision was influenced by the provisions of Section 14-a(2) of the SC/ST act, which allowed for the appellant's release on bail.
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 High Court granted bail under SC/ST Act due to insufficient grounds against appellants.
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
