Allowed

Mohd. Ahmad @ Kallu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.and Anr.

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2023/2012/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal for bail under the SC/ST Act, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order denying bail. The court held that there was no independent eye witness for the recovery of the knife and the FIR was lodged on hearsay, allowing the appellant bail on bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Implemetation of order dated 15.11.2021 in Bail Application No. 293 of 2021 set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties on conditions.

Mohd. Ahmad @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2012 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Mohd. Ahmad @ Kallu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.And Anr. Counsel for Appellant :- Uma Kant,Shreyansh Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Arun Singh Somvanshi

¶4

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶5

Counter AfÏdavit filed by the State is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, Sri Arun Singh Somvanshi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Instant criminal appeal under section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been filed challenging the order dated 15.11.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge/Second Additional Sessions Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri, arising out of Case Crime No. 243 of 2020, under Sections 302/34 IP.C. & Section 3(2)(V) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station -Mohammadi, District - Kheri and has sought bail in the aforesaid sections.

¶8

Learned counsel appearing for the applicantappellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present matter. He next added that though the appellant is named in the F.I.R., but, the general role has been assigned to all the accused persons including the present appellant. Later on the police has allegedly shown a recovery of knife from the possession of the appellant, but, there is no eye witness of the aforesaid recovery. He next added that identically situated co-accused persons namely ,Rafiullah, Munna, Mashroor, Munavvar Khan and Masiullah have already been enlarged on

¶9

bail by this court and the present applicant is seeking parity with the aforesaid identically situated co-accused persons.

¶10

He next added that since there was no independent eye witness at the time of recovery of the alleged knife, the evidence of such recovery is very weak. The appellant is languishing in jail since 02-04-2020. He next added that the appellant has no previous criminal antecedent and he is a law abiding citizen. He submits that the appellant undertakes that in case, he is granted bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate in the trial proceedings.

¶11

On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposed party no. 2 has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and submits that the appellant is named in the F.I.R. and a knife has been recovered from his possession and the role of present appellant is serious as well as distinguishable from the other co-accused persons and thus, the appellant is not entitled for bail.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State has supported the version of the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and submits that after thorough investigation, it was found that the appellant was involved in committing offence.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that none has seen the incident and the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged on the next day wherein present appellant has been named on hear-say. Further a knife is said to have been recovered from the possession of the appellant, but, there is no public witness of the aforesaid recovery. The other co-accused persons, who are named in the F.I.R. have already been enlarged on bail by this court and the appellant is

¶14

languishing in jail 02-04-2022.

¶15

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 15.11.2021 passed by learned Special/Second Additional Judge SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 293 of 2021 is set aside.

¶16

Let the applicant-appellant, Mohd. Ahmad @ Kallu 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:-

¶17

The applicant-appellant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

The applicant-appellant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶21

Order Date :- 15.2.2023 AKS

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Ahmad @ Kallu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ahmad @ Kallu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.and Anr.

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

Anshul Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Ram Newej @ Ram Niwas and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Yogesh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rajni Tripathi and Anr. Vs State of U.P. through Learned Principal Judge Family COURTandA

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru.Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Upendra Kumar Gautam and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another