Allowed

Sameer v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2024/1798/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the trial court's order rejecting bail. The appellant, charged under the SC/ST Act, was released on bail due to the five-month delay in lodging the FIR and absence of objections during the deceased's inquest, rendering the trial unlikely to conclude soon.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appellant released on bail by furnishing personal bond and two sureties with specific conditions.

Sameer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:481

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1798 of 2022 Appellant :- Sameer Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kaushal Kishore Tewari,Anurag Tilhari,Kapil Misra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Girish Kumar Tiwari,Vivek Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 12.05.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow arising out of Case Crime No. 30/2021 under Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Jankipuram, District- Lucknow.

¶7

As on behalf of the private respondent, name of two counsel namely, Shri Girish Kumar Tiwari and Shri Vivek Kumar Mishra are shown in the cause list but no one has put in appearance on his behalf. As the bail application is pending since 2022, therefore, matter is being proceeding for final disposal.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the F.I.R. in question was lodged after five months by moving application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as inquest as well as post-mortem of the body of deceased was conducted but no such complaint was made as alleged in the F.I.R. by the informant or other family members. He further submitted that charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner and the appellant is in jail since 16.07.2021. He further submitted that the bail application of the appellant was rejected by the trial court merely on the basis of presumption and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. He further submitted that the appellant has no criminal history, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of appellant but he does not dispute this fact the F.I.R. was lodged after delay of five

¶10

months on the order of learned Magistrate.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal as well as other relevant documents; as the F.I.R. was lodged after delay of five months and no such allegation was made at the time of inquest of the body of deceased, as the appellant is in jail since 16.07.2021. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that learned trial court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Reluctantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed , and the impugned order dated 12.05.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellant- Sameer 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

a. The appellant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶15

b. The appellant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 3.1.2024 V. Sinha

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sameer v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Ram Singh @ Nanku Chauhan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Prabha Shankar Yadav @ Gulle Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Balak Vs State of U.P.

Mumtaz Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Mohammad Qaiyoum Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home / Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Mayawati Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another