Allowed

Sadruddin @ Sadru v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home . Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2023/191/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by Sadruddin @ Sadru. The Court set aside the order rejecting his bail application, considering the lack of attribution for major injuries and the desire for a speedy trial. Bail was granted with personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed and the order rejecting bail set aside. Appellant granted bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

Sadruddin @ Sadru Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 191 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Sadruddin @ Sadru Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home . Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Nadeem Murtaza,Praveen Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sanjai Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, Sanjai Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

Instant criminal appeal under section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been filed with a prayer to set aside the order dated 06.01.2022, passed by the learned Special/Second Additional Sessions Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 299 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 588 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506, 341, 325 of the IPC and Section 3(2)5 of the SC/ST (PC) Act, 1989 registered at Police Station Nighasan, District Kheri.

¶7

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant-appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present matter. He next added that the role of one of the coaccused, namely, Haneef has been specified by the injured in his statement under Section 161 CrPC as he has stated that Haneef attacked with baka over the head of the appellant and the rest of the injuries are on the non-vital part, i.e., over the legs. He added that though the general role has been assigned to all the accused person for beating the injured and it could not be ascertained as to who was the author of the injuries. Further there are nine cases criminal history against the appellant which has been explained in paragraph 36 of the appeal. He further added that the appellant is in jail since 30.10.2021 and he undertakes that in case, the appellant is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the present appellant is named in the FIR and there are allegation against all the accused persons for beating the injured brutally and the injured has received injuries as per the

¶9

medical report and there are nine cases criminal history of the appellant, and as such the present appellant is not entitled for bail.

¶10

On the other hand, learned AGA has also supported the contention of learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and submits that after thorough investigation it was found that the appellant was involved in committing the offence and as such he is not entitled for bail.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the main role has been assigned to Haneef for attacking with baka over the vital party of the injured and thus the role of Haneef is distinguishable from the role of other co-accused persons; further other injuries are over the legs of the injured admittedly and this could not be ascertained at this stage that who is the author of the injuries as general role has been assigned to all the accused persons except Haneef; further there are nine cases criminal history which has been explained and the appellant is languishing in jail since 30.10.2021.

¶12

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of both the side and the facts that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed and the order dated 06.01.2022, passed by the learned Special/Second Additional Sessions Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 299 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 588 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506, 341, 325 of the IPC and Section 3(2)5 of the SC/ST (PC) Act, 1989 registered at Police Station Nighasan, District Kheri is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the applicant-appellant, Sadruddin @ Sadru involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶14

The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶15

The applicant-appellant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶16

The applicant-appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co-operate in the trial.

¶17

The applicant-appellant will appear regularly on each and

¶18

every date fixed by the trial court unless their personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶19

Order Date :- 13.2.2023 Anurag

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sadruddin @ Sadru v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home . Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadruddin @ Sadru v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home . Civil Sectt. Lko 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

Smt. Munni and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Vikas Kumar @ Vikas Shukla Vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy Home Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Harish Chandra Yadav @ Harish Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrett. Lko. and Another

Ravi Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and Anr.

Mohd. Safi Alias Lallu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief. Secy./Prin.Secy.(Home) Civil Sectt Lko and Another

Jaduveer Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P.Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another