Allowed

Faeem v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2021CRLA/286/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the criminal appeal by the appellant Faeem, challenging the bail rejection order dated 22.12.2020. After examining the criminal antecedents and role attributed to the appellant, the Court quashed the impugned order and released the appellant on bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with personal bond and two sureties; conditions imposed regarding attendance and precautions against threat to witnesses; impugned rejection order quashed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 286 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Faeem Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel,Azhar Hussain,Chandra Prakash Pandey,Phool Chandra Saroj,Saurabh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anil Kumar Srivastava

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Case called out in the revised list. None appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2. With the help & aid of learned AGA, Court is proceeded to decide the case on merit.

¶6

Report of the CJM Agra dated 6.2.2021 indicates that notice were duly served upon opposite party No. 2 and pursuant thereto Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava put his appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 2 but he could not file counter affidavit so far. Notice served upon opposite party No. 2, is sufficient and even in the revised call, no one has appeared to represent the opposite party No. 2.

¶7

Heard Sri Chandra Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State-respondent and perused the record.

¶8

The present criminal appeal has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 22.12.2020 passed by Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), District Agra, (in Bail Application No. 4200 of 2020) arising out of case crime No. 401 of 2020, under Section 452, 323, 324, 506, 504, 384, 307 & 120-B IPC and 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. Jagidshpura, District Agra.

¶9

The instant case is against the order of Special Judge SC/ST Act, Agra dated 22.12.2020.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the FIR. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the appellant is facing a prosecution in Case No. 401 of 2020, P.S. Jagdishpura, District Agra, under Section 452, 323, 504, 506, 384, 307, 120-B and Section 325 of the SC/ST Act. It has been mentioned that for the incident occurred on 19.7.2020,

¶11

present FIR came into existence on 2.8.2020 by himself who has become informant of the present case. The FIR was registered against eight named accused persons. It is further contended that the role of actual assault has been attributed to Munna, Kammo Bhai & Samoo and remaining were have said to be hatched conspiracy engaging these aforesaid process for commission of the actual offence. Name of the appellant is one of the conspirators. He is not an author of actual assault of the injured.

¶12

Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail application by making submission that the appellant has criminal history of 11 cases.

¶13

I have perused the criminal antecedents of the appellant and it is explained by the learned counsel by means of para-2 of the supplementary affidavit, it indicates that though there are criminal history of 11 cases to the credit of the appellant, out of which, four cases have been closed by the prosecution itself; in two cases, he has been acquitted by the court concerned and in remaining cases, he has been bailed out and thus, in fact, practically speaking there are only five cases to the credit of the appellant and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a fit case for bail.

¶14

Let the appellant- Faeem , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two 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 SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE 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.

¶16

(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT

¶17

MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶18

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER 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/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶19

(iv) 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 THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶20

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

¶21

Keeping in view that though the complainant belongs to the S.C. community and as per arguments of learned counsel for the complainant that the accused appellant would create all sorts of impediments in the smooth trial. Besides this, after the release the accused appellant who belong to a higher caste may extend threat and pressurize the witnesses.

¶22

All these complaints may be raised by the complainant before S.P. concerned who would examine objectively after having reports from his agencies at the earliest with regard to threat prospective of informant and his family members and use his own discretion in the matter, if it desirable, then during trial may provide security to complainant and his near family members.

¶23

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, role attributed to the appellant of hatching the conspiracy and a period of incarceration undergone by the appellant in jail

¶24

since 13.10.2020 and with the above observation, appeal is allowed . The order impugned dated 22.12.2020 is hereby, quashed .

¶25

Order Date :- 12.8.2021 Ankita

Faeem v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faeem 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

Monu Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Santosh Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Naseem and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Other