Allahabad High Court
Shakina vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 August, 2022
Author: Sanjay Kumar Singh
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 88 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1950 of 2022 Appellant :- Shakina Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajeev Kumar Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and Shri Vijay Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant/opposite party No. 2 and perused the record of the case.
This criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 23.3.2022 passed by the In-charge Special Judge, Exclusive Special Court, SC/ST Act/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Maharajganj, whereby the learned Judge rejected the bail application moved on behalf of the appellant in Bail Application No. 50 of 2022 (Shakina Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Special Sessions trial No. 483 of 2020, case crime No. 235 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323, 336, 308 IPC and 3(1) Dha SC/ST Act, police station Nautanwa, district Maharajganj.
As per prosecution case, in brief, the FIR of the incident dated 14.9.2020 was lodged on 15.9.2020 by the informant against eleven named accused persons and one unknown person making allegations inter alia that on 14.9.2020 at about 10.00 AM when his wife was sleeping in the house, then co-accused Masid Ali, Chhote Ali barged into his house and tried to outrage the modesty of his wife. On making protest, the accused persons have reached there and assaulted the first informant and his wife.
The main substratum of argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. She was not named in the FIR and no specific role has been attributed to him in the commission of the alleged offence. It is pointed out that co-accused Irfan, Sonu, son of Masid Ali, Sonu, son of Chhotey Ali and Mohd Rahim, who are named in the FIR has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.2.2021 in Criminal Appeal No. 2971 of 2020 and the case of the present appellant stands on better footing to that of the aforesaid co-accused. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The appellant does not have any criminal history and is languishing in jail since 23.3.2022 and in case, the appellant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant, but could not dispute the aforesaid factum of the case as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that co-accused, who are named in the FIR and against whom specific allegations have been attributed in the FIR have been granted bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned order rejecting bail application of the appellant is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant Shakina, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) That the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.
(ii) That 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.
(iii) That after her release, the appellant shall not involve in any criminal activity.
(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the appellant on bail.
In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.
Order Date :- 11.8.2022 Ishrat