Allowed

Waseem and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Jul 2023CRLA/3376/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal appeal for bail under the SC/ST Act, holding that the lower court erred in rejecting the application. The court set aside the impugned order and released the appellants on bail subject to strict conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order rejecting bail set aside; appellants released on bond and two sureties each subject to compliance with bail conditions.

Waseem and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:150973

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3376 of 2022

¶4

Appellant :- Waseem And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ved Prakash Mishra,Amber Khanna,Raj Kumar Khanna Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Devi Prasad Tripathi,Manish Kumar Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Vide order dated 19.07.2023 learned A.G.A. has been granted time to file better affidavit regarding criminal history of the appellant and in compliance thereof the learned A.G.A. has filed better affidavit, which is taken on record. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the appellant Waseem has no criminal history to his credit.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶8

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 11.05.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Moradabad in Bail Application No. 1463 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 24 of 2022, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Dilari, District Moradabad.

¶9

The case of prosecution is that the brother of the informant Monu was driving the vehicle of appellant Waseem and he used to visit the informant's house frequently. Waseem and his family members had suspicion that Monu was having illicit relation with the sister of Waseem so that the Monu was removed from service to drive the vehicle of the informant. On 02.02.2022 at around 6.00 am in the morning when Monu was easing himself, the appellant and co-accused Waseem, Naseem, Faijab and Yamin committed the murder of Monu and threw the dead body in the field of wheat of one Chhidda of the village.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellants are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that there is no evidence of last seen against the

¶11

appellants that the deceased was seen in the company of the appellants before his death. There is no eye witness account of the incident. The appellants have been named in the first information report on the basis of suspicion. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that there is no chance of the appellants fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The appellants are languishing in jail since 03.02.2022 and in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in the early disposal of the case.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter.

¶13

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, this Court is of the view that the appellants have made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶14

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶15

Let appellants, Waseem and Nasim , involved in the above Case be released on bail on furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

(i) The appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

(ii) The appellants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

(iii) The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶19

(iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected.

¶20

(v) The appellants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the

¶21

evidence.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶23

Order Date :- 27.7.2023 Prajapati

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Waseem and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waseem and Another 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

Iqkrar @ Pappal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ahasn Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lukesh Arora and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhay Pandey @ Kariya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kishan Lal @ Setti Vs State of U.P.

Dilip Kumar Singh @ Dilip Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another