Allowed

Sameer @ Sameer Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2024/403/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the criminal appeal against an order rejecting bail. Setting aside the lower court's order, the High Court released the appellant on bail with additional conditions, noting the trial is unlikely to conclude soon and his confinement is prolonged.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order rejecting bail and released the appellant on bail with a personal bond, two sureties, and specific undertakings for trial participation.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9421

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 403 of 2023

¶4

Appellant :- Sameer @ Sameer Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

Though name of Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate is shown in the cause list on behalf of the private respondents, but none is present on their behalf.

¶8

As the present appeal is pending since 30th January, 2023 and the afÏdavits have already been exchanged, therefore, the case is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.

¶9

This criminal appeal has been filed under Sections 14A(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against order dated 17.12.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Hardoi in Bail Application No. 3331 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 556 of 2021 under Sections 394, 302, 201, 411 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused, Naushad. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. was lodged on 11th June, 2021 with the allegation that the truck in question was taken away by the conductor, Ramkhelawan of the vehicle. Thereafter, the body of Ramkhelawan was recovered on 12.06.2021 and the truck in question was recovered on 07.07.2021. It is also submitted that the co-accused, Naushad was arrested on 16.09.2021 in a police encounter and in his confessional

¶11

statement, the involvement of the appellant was surfaced. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is also tried by the prosecution to establish that 54 bags, out of 600 bags of wheat were taken away by the accused persons and empty 54 bags were recovered on the pointing out of the co-accused, Naushad. It is vehemently submitted that only confessional statement of the co-accused person is not a sufÏcient ground for conviction. 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 does not have any criminal antecedent and is in jail since 17.09.2021, is entitled for bail. It is also submitted that the appellant is ready to cooperate in the trial.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that active involvement of the appellant was found in the confessional statement of coaccused, Naushad, who was arrested on 16.09.2021. It is further submitted that Naushad, with the association of the appellant, killed the driver, Ramlakhan and thereafter, took away the truck. Thereafter, when the fuel of the vehicle was finished, they left the truck and went away with 54 bags of wheat. On 7th July, 2021, the vehicle in question was recovered. However, he does not dispute the fact that no forensic sample was taken by the team related to finger print from the steering as well as cabin of the vehicle.

¶13

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and going through the contents of the appeal, F.I.R., impugned order, statement of the witnesses including the confessional statement of co-accused, Naushad as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the involvement of the appellant surfaced in the confessional statement of Naushad, who was arrested after three months from the date of incident. It is also evident that the trial is still

¶14

pending and the appellant is in jail since 17.09.2021.

¶15

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.

¶16

Impugned order dated 17.12.2022 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act), Hardoi in Bail Application No. 3331 of 2022 arising out of Case Crime No. 556 of 2021 under Sections 394, 302, 201, 411 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali City, District Hardoi is hereby set aside.

¶17

Let appellant, Sameer @ Sameer Ahmad 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 :-

¶18

(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.

¶19

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

¶20

(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 appellant 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.

¶21

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before

¶22

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.

¶23

Order Date :- 1.2.2024 VKS

¶24

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

Sameer @ Sameer Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer @ Sameer Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 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

Teepu Salmani @ Mohd. Sahbaan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow and 2 Others

Rajesh Dhuriya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home , Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Sonu @ Ajay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Nitish Yadav Alias Aman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Another

Shiv Pratap Singh @ Neeraj Lodhi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Tarzan Vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary (Home) and Anr.