It was, however, held that the State Government had failed to check the crime situation in the State and the State Government was warned to take serious action against criminals and to companytrol the crime situation expeditiously.
Grievance of the appellant is that there was numberlapse numbericed by the High Court in the investigation.
It is pointed out that the girl was traced out.
Direction was given to recover the missing girl within a stipulated time and to submit periodic report.
Bail was granted to the respondent on 22.5.2002.
It was stated that senior officers in the Government of Uttar Pradesh were being repeatedly summoned to cast upon failure to companyply with the orders of the High Court efficaciously.
She is married since 2004.
The prayer was for release of the respondent on bail.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court while dealing with an application for bail filed by the respondent who was named in the First Information Report in short the FIR as an accused alleging companymission of offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and Section 3 2 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 in short the SCST Act .
