Allowed

Mohammad Vakil v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Sept 2021CRLA/2854/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal appeal filed against the bail rejection order under Section 14 A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, granting bail to the appellant with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to Mohammad Vakil on personal bond and two sureties with strict conditions regarding trial cooperation and attendance.

Mohammad Vakil Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2854 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Mohammad Vakil Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pankaj Dubey,Manoj Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Pursuant to the order dated 26.07.2021 notices were served upon opposite party no.2 but neither counsel has been engaged on his behalf nor any counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

¶7

The Court is proposing to decide the present appeal. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have already been exchanged between the parties.

¶8

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 bail rejection order dated 30.06.2021 passed by Special/Additional Judge Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribes, Varanasi in Bail Application No. 1889 of 2021 (Mohd Vakil Vs. State of U.P.) in Case Crime No. 71 of 2021 under Sections 323, 504, 506, 307 and 34 IPC and 3(2)(v) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S. Adampur, District Varanasi.

¶9

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the FIR was got registered against the four named accused persons including the appellant. I have perused the story narrated in the FIR as well as statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which actual role of assault by giving a knife is attributed to the co-accused Mohd. Babloo, on the exhortation made by Mohd. Raju. Though the applicant was present on the spot but no role has been attributed to him in the FIR as well as statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The appellant is languishing in jail since 04.06.2020.

¶10

Learned A.G.A opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶11

The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant,

¶12

prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.

¶13

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and adopting the same reasoning, I am of the view that the present appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶14

Let the appellant- Mohammad Vakil , 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:-

¶15

(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.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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

¶20

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.

¶21

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.

¶22

Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated order dated 30.06.2021 passed by Special/Additional Judge Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribes, Varanasi, is hereby set aside.

¶23

Order Date :- 7.9.2021 Ujjawal

Mohammad Vakil v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Vakil 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

Chandan @ Ankit and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Singhal @ Monu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jitendra Yadav @ Mahendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Khilendra @ Boby Vs State of U.P and Another

Ashish Kumar Kanojia Vs State Of U.P.

Rajkumar Vs State of U.P. and Another