Allowed

Shahrukh Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC1 Sept 2021CRLA/2777/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal No. 2777 of 2021 dismissed the conviction and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for seven years. The judgment also bundled fines and costs. The High Court allowed the reference to be made to the Sessions Court for a joint trial.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail. Impugned bail rejection order set aside. Conditions imposed for future conduct during trial.

Shahrukh Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2777 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Shahrukh Ahmad Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

From the order sheet, it is clear that the notices were directed to be served upon opposite party no.2 by order of this Court dated 20.07.2021.

¶7

Office report dated 01.09.2021, it is clear that the notice were served upon opposite party no.2 through Jail Superintendent, Bijnor upon opposite party no.2 as the informant Sri Bhole is being the Bars in connection with some other case.

¶8

Learned AGA has filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶9

Under the circumstances, when the informant himself is in jail, it would be hard upon the applicant to remain in side the jail in connection with the present case.

¶10

As the applicant does not know when he will come from the jail after serving out his period of incarceration and as such with the help of learned AGA, the Court is proposing to decide the present criminal appeal.

¶11

By means of the present criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") the applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 29.06.2021 rejecting the bail application no. 1360 of 2021 passed by learned Special Judge(SC/ST) Act, Bijnor in case crime no. 54 of 2021, under Sections 302, 120B/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. Mandawali, District Bijnor.

¶12

Contention raised by the counsel that the applicant is not even named in the FIR. The complicity of the applicant surfaced in the confessional statement of one Charan, which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the affidavit.

¶13

I have perused the confessional statement in which role of catching hold has been attributed to the applicant. It is further contended that the co-accused Dharmendra, who is similarly situated and admitted on bail by the In-charge Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bijnor by order dated 09.06.2021. The case of the applicant stand on similar footing qua Dharmendra. The appellant is languishing in jail since 06.04.2021.

¶14

Learned A.G.A as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for bail.

¶15

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

¶16

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 in which the appellant has been summoned 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

¶17

made out a case for bail.

¶18

Let the appellant-Shahrukh Ahmad, 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:-

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

(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.

¶22

(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.

¶23

(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.

¶24

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.

¶25

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated order dated 29.06.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bijnor, is hereby set aside.

¶26

Order Date :- 1.9.2021 Abhishek Sri.

Shahrukh Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahrukh Ahmad 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

Pawan Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pawan Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sarika Rai Vs State of U.P.

Israrul Haque Khan Vs State of U.P.

Annu Alias Sunil Chaudhary Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar Vs State of U.P.