Allowed

Mohd. Ashfaque Alias Kallu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2024/1338/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed a criminal appeal filed under the SC/ST Act. The court observed that specific serious injuries were not assigned to the appellant and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. The impugned bail order was set aside, and the appellant was released on bail with strict undertaking conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of 06.04.2023 setting aside bail rejected. Appellant Mohd. Ashfaque Alias Kallu released on bail furnished by personal bond and two reliable sureties.

Mohd. Ashfaque Alias Kallu Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:5263

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1338 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Mohd. Ashfaque Alias Kallu Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd Wajid Irfan,Mohd. Ali,Rehan Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mulayam Singh Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Supplementary afÏdavit filed by the learned counsel for the appellant is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

However, no one is present on behalf of respondent no. 2.

¶9

As this appeal is pending since 18.04.2023, the same is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.

¶10

This criminal appeal has been filed under Sections 14(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against order dated 06.04.2023 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 514 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 332, 353, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Cantt., District Ayodhya.

¶11

The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that there are general allegations in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement. No specific role was assigned to the appellant. Correct fact is that in the aforesaid incident, father of the co-accused Raja @ Arbaz was also injured and received fracture in leg because of beating on the part of the first informant and his allies and there is no proper explanation of injury on the part of prosecution in the present case. Appellant has also explained the 9 criminal

¶12

history in the supplementary afÏdavit filed today, in which, either he is on bail or the compromise had arrived in between the parties. The bail orders have been annexed with the supplementary afÏdavit. It is also submitted that the co-accused, Raja @ Arbaz has already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1641 of 2023 vide order dated 16.01.2024.

¶13

From perusal of injury report of Prem Prakash Rawat, it transpires that the injured received only one serious injury on the left side of the skull on his parietal region and other injuries are simple in nature. Other injured received simple injuries. The allegation of causing this serious injury is not on the appellant but general allegation was made against all the accused persons. It is lastly submitted that the court below has not considered all these facts while rejecting the bail application and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant, who is in jail since 22.02.2023, is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the appellant is ready to cooperate in the trial..

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that though there is specific allegation against the appellant but there are allegation against the appellant and his family for causing injuries to the employee of electricity department during check in drive. Therefore, prima facie case is made out against the appellant.

¶15

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that general allegations were assigned to the five accused persons but there is only one injury which is said to be serious, therefore, it cannot be assigned to the appellant even otherwise there is a version of appellant side also that father of the co-accused Raja @ Arbaz was also suffered serious injury in his leg and there is no proper explanation

¶16

of the same. It is also evident that the co-accused Raja @ Arbaz has already been granted bail.

¶17

In view of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶18

Impugned order dated 06.04.2023 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 514 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 332, 353, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Cantt., District Ayodhya is hereby set aside.

¶19

Let appellant, Mohd. Ashfaque Alias Kallu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶20

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

¶21

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for 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 sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶24

Order Date :- 17.1.2024 VKS

¶25

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Ashfaque Alias Kallu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ashfaque Alias Kallu v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and 4 Others

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

Shivam Yadav Thru. His Father Pankaj Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Prof. Ranjana Sharma and Another vs Mr. Partha Sarathi Sen Sharma, Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Deptt. of Medical Education Lko. and Another

Virendra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Co- Operative, Lko. and 4 Others

Anoop Saxena Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. and 5 Others

Rohit Patel Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another