Allowed

Sameem v. State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC18 Jan 2024/740/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenged the Special Judge's order rejecting a bail application. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting bail to the appellant subject to specific conditions including personal bonds and restrictions on adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 2.3.2022 rejected as it was set aside. Appellant granted bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to conditions regarding adjournments and presence in court.

Sameem Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. and… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:5336

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 740 of 2022

¶4

Appellant :- Sameem Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Sahay Yadaw,Arshad Hafeez Khan,Dinesh Kr. Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard 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 2.3.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 339 of 2022 arising out of F.I.R. No. 224 of 2017, under Sections 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Jankipuram, District Lucknow.

¶8

It is evident that notice has already been served on the complainant but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that as per the prosecution case, victim is a major lady and she went with the appellant on her own. He next submits that as in the case diary, it is also mentioned that victim made call to her uncle and stated that criminal case must be taken back then she will come back but all these facts were not taken into consideration by the Investigating OfÏcer and neither he interrogated the subscriber of the mobile numbers 7068835135, 9792294276. It is further submitted that charge sheet has already been filed by the appellant and he does not have any criminal antecedent. It is, thus, submitted that appellant, who is in jail since 15.6.2020 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 but he does not dispute this fact

¶11

that after lodging of the F.I.R., victim made a call to her uncle for withdrawal of the case.

¶12

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that victim is a major lady and she does not supported the prosecution version. Apparently, all these facts were not considered by the court below at the time of rejecting the bail application vide impugned order dated 2.3.2022.

¶13

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 .

¶14

Order dated 2.3.2022 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 339 of 2022 arising out of F.I.R. No. 224 of 2017, under Sections 366, 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Jankipuram, District Lucknow, is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let appellant-applicant, Sameem 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 :-

¶16

(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.

¶17

(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 229-A of the

¶18

Indian Penal Code.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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 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 him in accordance with law.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.1.2024 Gaurav/-

¶22

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

Sameem v. State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameem v. State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Home, 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

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

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

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

Ashutosh Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Mahmood Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Narendra Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another