Allowed

Sultan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Oct 2019CRLA/5294/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal challenging the High Court's order rejecting bail under the SC/ST Act was allowed. The Court held that the High Court erred in refusal, noting parity with a released co-accused, and released the appellant subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail subject to personal bond, two sureties, and conditions regarding tampering, intimidation, appearance at trial, and committing further offences.

Sultan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5294 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Sultan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ganesh Prasad

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta, J.

¶5

Learned AGA has filed counter affidavit on behalf of the State, which is taken on record.

¶6

Counter affidavit, filed by counsel for the Opposite Party No.2, is also taken on record.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit, filed by counsel for the appellant, is also taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Ganesh Prasad, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 and perused the record.

¶9

This criminal appeal under Section 14 A(2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 25.07.2019 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bijnor in Bail Application No. 1802 of 2019 (State Vs. Sultan), arising out of Case crime No. 592 of 2018, under Sections 307, 332, 353, 120-B I.P.C. and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Najibabad, District Bijnor seeking bail in the aforesaid sections.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to village party bandi and enmity.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that the FIR has been lodged against unknown persons and the present appellant has not been named in the FIR and his name has surfaced for the first time on the basis of information given by informer.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that similarly placed co-accused Imran @ Bhoora has already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 755 of 2019 vide order dated 01.05.2019.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that the case of the appellant stands on the same footing is that of the co-accused Imran @ Bhoora, who has already been granted bail by this Court.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that no recovery has been made from the possession of the appellant or on his pointing out.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant has lastly submitted that the appellant is in jail since 18.07.2019 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial by all means. The criminal history of the appellant has been explained in para 26 of the affidavit.

¶16

Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the fact that similarly placed co-accused Imran @ Bhoora has already been granted bail by this Court and that the appellant is in jail since 18.07.2019.

¶17

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶18

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶19

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.07.2019 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶20

Let the appellant Sultan involved in Case crime No. 592 of 2018, under Sections 307, 332, 353, 120-B I.P.C. and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Najibabad, District Bijnor be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶21

The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶22

The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶23

The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶24

The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶25

The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so

¶26

as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶27

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶28

Order Date :- 19.10.2019 Nadim

Sultan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sultan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manohar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ankit Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mohammad Ibram @ Imran Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashish Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ravindra Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Vs State of U.P. and Another