Allowed

Salman v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2021CRLA/1376/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by Salman against the order rejecting his bail application under the SC/ST Act. The court set aside the lower court's order and granted bail, noting that the appellant had made a case for release despite the nature of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the impugned order dated 16.12.2020; appellant Salman released on personal bond and two reliable sureties subject to conditions.

Salman Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1376 of 2021 Appellant :- Salman Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Chandra Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajeet Srivastava

¶2

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶3

Rejoinder affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellant today in the Court is taken on record.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶5

This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the impugned order dated 16.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gautam Budh Nagar in Bail Application No.2927 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime no.694 of 2020, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Phase-II, NOIDA, District-Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶6

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the present FIR was got registered by Smt. Guddi Devi against the sole named accused person Salman without mentioning his father's name with the allegation that informant's husband was the driver of e-rickshaw. There was a minor scuffle and altercation between the applicant and the injured and around 10 in the night, he has given knife blow and hurled filthy caste related abuses to the informant. A perusal of the injury report shows that there is a deep lacerated wound of 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 2 cm and linear abrasion above the umbilicus. The measurement of the injuries are superficial in nature. It is next submitted that seven witnesses have been examined in this case and all of them have turned hostile. The appellant is languishing in jail since 16.11.2020.

¶7

Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has refuted the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant by making a mention that the appellant has got a long criminal history of 17 cases.

¶8

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the rejoinder affidavit, it has been clearly mentioned that the name of the applicant is Salman s/o Habib Hussain and learned A.G.A. has wrongly credited all the 17 cases of different Salman of the police station to the credit of applicant. Indeed, this is shocking and surprising that without verifying the paternity of the applicant, all the cases were pasted against the applicant. In fact, applicant is involved in two cases i.e. present one and another case relates to Arms Act which has duly been explained by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶9

The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.

¶10

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, taking into account the manner and mode of the offence and the period of detention already undergone, and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶11

Let the appellant- Salman , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶12

(i) THE APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.

¶13

(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶14

(iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶15

(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶16

(v) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶17

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.

¶18

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 16.12.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gautam Budh Nagar in Bail Application No.2927 of 2020, arising out of Case Crime no.694 of 2020, under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-Phase-II, NOIDA, District-Gautam Budh Nagar, is hereby set aside.

¶19

Order Date :- 29.7.2021/Sumit S

Salman v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salman v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Bharat and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Yadav and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Triloki Yadav and 9 Others Vs State of U.P.

Anand Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Bachanu Vs State of u.p

Shyam Singh @ Shyamu Vs State of Up and Others