Allowed

Mukhtar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2024/3371/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the criminal appeal, holding that the lower court erred in rejecting bail without considering that the deceased voluntarily entered the well. The impugned bail rejection order was set aside, and the appellant was granted bail with additional conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant released on bail with personal bond, two sureties, and conditions against adjournments and absence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 13

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3371 of 2023

¶3

Appellant :- Mukhtar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Suhail Kashif,Mohd.Umeed Irshad Qadri,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶5

Counter afÏdavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶6

As it is evident from the record that notice has already been served on the complainant but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant, therefore, matter is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 03.11.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 4948 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 332 of 2023, under Sections 304 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Tikaitnagar, District Barabanki.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of incorrect facts. He further submits that it is admitted case of the prosecution that goat of appellant fell down in a well and it was known to him and other family members that Baratilal S/o Kallu can rescue the goat, therefore, request was made to him and initially, he demanded Rs.1,000/-, thereafter, he agreed at Rs.600/-, then on his advice, rope was tied in his back and he went into well, thereafter, due to some toxic gases, he was fainted and immediately taken out but he could not survived, as a result, F.I.R. was lodged under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. He further submits that charge sheet was filed by the Investigating OfÏcer in the most mechanical manner under Section 304 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act. He also submits that co-accused

¶9

Jiyauddin & Gayasuddin, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 2.2.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.3253 of 2023. He further submits that no such offence is made out against the appellant but without considering all these facts, bail of the appellant was rejected the court below. He lastly submits that appellant, who is in jail since 21.08.2023, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. vehemently oppose the prayer of the appellant and submit that the deceased was insisted to enter into well, as a result, he died.

¶11

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., inquest report, post mortem report, bail order of the co-accused Jiyauddin & Gayasuddin as well as other relevant documents including the statement of the eye witnesses, it is evident that deceased was not forced to enter into the well. Apparently, all these facts were not considered by the court below at the time of rejecting the bail application vide impugned order dated 03.11.2023.

¶12

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.

¶13

Order dated 03.11.2023 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 4948 of 2023 arising out of F.I.R. No. 332 of 2023, under Sections 304 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Tikaitnagar, District Barabanki, is hereby set aside.

¶14

Let appellant Mukhtar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶15

(i) The appellants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

(iv) The appellants 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 applicant 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 them in accordance with law.

¶19

Order Date :- 22.2.2024 Gaurav/-

¶20

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mukhtar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukhtar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Jeetu @ Sachin Srivastava and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Anoop Tiwari Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Ahmad Kuraishi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ganesh Prasad and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Sanjay Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and 3 Others

Jagannath Singh Alias Munnu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others