Dismissed

Fareed Ahmad @ Sharif Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC16 May 2023CRLA/2681/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant seeking to set aside the rejection of his bail application in an SC/ST Act case involving allegations of cheating, extortion, and caste-based abuse against an informant.

What did the court decide?

Criminal appeal dismissed; bail rejected; trial directed to be concluded expeditiously within one year.

Fareed Ahmad @ Sharif Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:106836

¶2

Reserved on 08.05.2023 Delivered on 16.05.2023

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2681 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Fareed Ahmad @ Sharif Ahmad Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Vashisth,Dileep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ray Sahab Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Sunil Vashisth, learned counsel for the appellant; Shri Ray Sahab Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A.

¶7

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant, Fareed Ahmad @ Sharif Ahmad, to set aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2023, whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him in Case Crime No. 506 of 2022, under Sections 420, 386, 342, 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi.

¶8

There is allegation in the first information report that informant wanted to purchase a house he contacted the appellant, who was known to him earlier and it is alleged the appellant introduced the co-accused, Shamim Khan, who wanted to sell his house. The appellant agreed to purchase the house for Rs.20 lakhs.

¶9

The appellant asked the informant to pay Rs.5 lakhs in advance but the informant stated that he has only Rs.2 lakh now. The appellant and coaccused, Shamim Khan got annoyed and abused the informant with caste related words and stated that in case you did not have money why you came to purchase house. Thereafter co-accused locked him in a room and Babu lal, who was accompanying the appellant, was asked to bring Rs.5 lakh. He paid Rs.2 lakhs as stated that he will bring Rs.3 lakhs more. Thereafter they released the informant from the room and when he sought time to bring Rs. 3 lakh after arrangement, he was again abused and beaten by legs and fists and made captive. Thereafter the relatives of informant brought Rs.3 lakhs more and then the informant was released later. The informant came to know that the house of co-accused, Shamim Khan is built on government land and

¶10

they had given fabricated house tax receipts which was also snatched by them from the informant. When the appellant asked them to return his money the co-accused, Shamim Khan, beated him and tried to strangulate him to death. His brothers Naim Khan and Fahim Khan also threatened him from making demand of his money back again.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a case of false implication. The first information report has been lodged after 15 months of the incident. There was no injury found on the person of the informant as alleged in the first information report. The role of the appellant is only of introduction of the informant to the co-accused, Shamim Khan. The allegation that house tax receipts were given to the informant by the appellant and co-accused is incorrect. No money was paid by the informant and he has falsely implicated the appellant because of rivalry between two groups of Advocates. The appellant claims himself to be Advocate. He is in jail since 02.01.2023 and has criminal history of 15 cases explained in the supplementary affidavit.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has supported the order passed by the Sessions court and vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submits that the appellant has earlier also being involved in a case under the SC/ST Act. There is also one case of murder registered against him. During detention he has been implicated in five more cases. It appears that he is habitual offender and has misused the liberty of bail earlier granted to him.

¶13

After hearing rival contentions, this court finds that it is not a fit case for granting bail to the appellant, keeping view his earlier implication in 15 cases and his role of introducing the informant to the co-accused for the purpose of cheating, extortion etc.

¶14

Criminal appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

The trial court may make all possible endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order in accordance with law, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶16

Order Date :- 16.5.2023 SS

¶17

2 of 2

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SURENDAR SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Fareed Ahmad @ Sharif Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fareed Ahmad @ Sharif 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

Vishal Yadav @ Shivam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Seema Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish Chandra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Subash Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satish @ Leelu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another