Dismissed

Mohd Saeed v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2024CRLA/1402/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the appellant challenged the rejection of his anticipatory bail application under the SC/ST Act. The court held that a prima facie case exists against him under Section 18 of the Act, rendering anticipatory bail non-maintainable, and dismissed the appeal while observing that bail applications would be consider

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as it was devoid of merit; the Special Judge's order was upheld.

Mohd Saeed vs State of Up and Another — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:187347

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1402 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Mohd Saeed Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohammad Waseem Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Mohd Saeed with the prayer to allow the present appeal and set aside the anticipatory bail rejection order dated 8.1.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Varanasi and release the appellant on anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 80 of 2023 under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 325, 352, 336/34 I.P.C. and 3(1) da, dha and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station Adampur, District Varanasi.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

¶8

A query was made by this Court as to whether the name of the accused appellant is Mohd Saeed or Mohd Saeed alias Shadab.

¶9

Learned State counsel has submitted that the certificate of a Corporator was obtained by the Investigating Officer through WhatsApp message and that is why there is no original document on record in respect of the full name of the appellant but however, he submitted that in the charge-sheet itself the present accused appellant has been challaned with the name of Mohd Saeed alias Shadab. Hence, it appears at this stage that the full name of the appellant is Mohd Saeed alias Shadab.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case he was not named in F.I.R. but during the course of investigation after 35 days of the incident name of the present applicant was brought into light and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that in F.I.R. 8 named and 1 unknown persons were said to have caused injuries to the injured with heavy stone but no any specific role has been assigned to the present appellant, therefore he cannot be said to have caused injures on the person of the injured. It is next submitted that none of the eyewitness has named the present appellant in the commission of the crime. It is further submitted that co-accused, Danish @ Malai and Shubhanallah have already been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 05.04.2024 and 2.5.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.1557 of 2024 and 2625 of 2024.

¶11

The appellant is having no criminal antecedents to his credit. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the amended provisions of SC/ST Act. It is also submitted that the applicant has been cooperative during the course of investigation. After submission of charge-sheet, no custodial interrogation is required. All these facts were not taken into consideration by the learned Special Judge while rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the applicant which cannot be said to be lawful, therefore requested to set it aside, allow the appeal and grant anticipatory bail to the appellant.

¶12

Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer and it has been submitted that during the course of investigation name of the applicant came to surface and his involvement in the present offence was disclosed and after conclusion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the present appellant under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506, 325, 352, 336/34 I.P.C. and 3(1) da, dha and 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act. Since the appellant does not belong to S.C./S.T. caste and offence was committed with a member of S.C./S.T. caste and this fact was in his knowledge therefore application of Section 3(2)(v) will attract in this case. Where prima facie case under S.C./S.T. Act is made out from the facts and material of the case, the provisions of anticipatory bail cannot apply as per bar as contained under Section 18 of the Act, therefore the order passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act is lawful.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and from the material available on record, prima facie the participation of present appellant in the present offence appears to have been made out and a charge sheet has also been filed against him. Since prima facie case under the S.C./S.T. Act is made out, therefore, bar under Section 18 of the Act will apply and anticipatory bail cannot be said to be maintainable. In view of that, there appears no ground to allow the appeal and the order passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act dated 8.1.2024 cannot be said to be illegal and requires no interference by this Court but this Appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed .

¶14

However, it is observed that the bail application of the applicant/appellant, if moved, shall be considered and decided by the Court concerned in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825 .

¶15

Order Date :- 25.11.2024 ss

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mohd Saeed v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Saeed v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Priyanka Tripathi vs Ashutosh Shukla

Sujeet Verma vs State of Up and 3 Others

Mahesh Chaudhary vs State of Up and Another

Somveer vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Kumar Alias Tinkle vs State of U.P.

Satish Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another