Allowed

Lateeq Alias Laheek v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Bail – Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2024CRLA/2379/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act challenging rejection of bail for an accused in a murder and caste-atrocity case. Citing circumstantial evidence lacking material implicating him, no criminal history and co-accused's bail, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the bail rejection and ordered release on bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; bail-rejection order set aside; appellant released on bail on personal bond with two sureties subject to stated conditions.

Lateeq Alias Laheek Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:83283

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2379 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Lateeq Alias Laheek Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vikas Sharma,Mohd. Karim,Syed Kamil Hasan,Vikas Pandey

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

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

¶8

Although notice has been served on the complainant, however no one has appeared on behalf of the informant.

¶9

This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 14A (2) the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to set aside the order dated 26.02.2024 passed in Bail application No.75/2024, arising out of case crime No.307/2023, under Sections 504, 506, 120-B, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Pisawan, District Sitapur.

¶10

In the prosecution case it is alleged that on 12.08.2023 at about 11:30 p.m. the daughter of the informant, aged about 12 years, went to ease out. In the meantime, accused nos. 1 and 2 caught hold of the victim. Accused no.3, who was armed with gun, threatened that if she raises alarm she will be shot. This incident was seen by a neighbouring women who told the family members, then the informant told to Farooq, then all the villagers started searching the victim. At about 2.00 a.m. in the light of motorcycle the victim was found hanging from the tree. It is further alleged that after the police reached and went along with the dead body the accused persons have threatened the complainant and his family members and hurled caste related

¶11

abuses.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that before lodging the FIR an information was given by the informant in which no allegations were made. Specific query has been put by the Investigating Officer while recording the statement of the complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. regarding that, to which no reply has been given by the complainant.

¶13

It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that postmortem of the deceased was conducted in which cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. Viscera has been preserved. There is no ante mortem injury on the body of the deceased. The lone eye witness or last seen witness Phool Bano, whose name was taken by the complainant in the statement that she has seen the victim along with the present applicant in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has not supported the prosecution case. She has clearly said that the victim was going lone. It is submitted that there is no material with the prosecution to implicate the applicant in this case. He is not concerned with the offence in question. There is no role of the applicant. Neither there is any witness of the crime nor there is any circumstantial evidence which points towards the complicity of the applicant. He is in jail since 13.8.2023. The applicant has no criminal history.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the co-accused Farooq @ Sharukh has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 5.12.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2160 of 2024. He seeks parity with the bail order of co-accused Farooq @ Sharukh.

¶15

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the factual submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellantapplicant.

¶16

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the record and the facts that the case is of circumstantial evidence, prima facie there is no material to implicate the applicant in this case, the applicant is in jail since 13.8.2023, the applicant has no criminal history and without commenting upon merits, I am of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. In view of above, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

¶17

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 26.02.2024 passed in Bail application No.75/2024, arising out of case crime No.307/2023, under Sections 504, 506, 120-B, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Pisawan, District Sitapur, is set aside.

¶18

Let the appellant-applicant Lateeq Alias Laheek involved in aforesaid case be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶20

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶21

(iii) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

(iv) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall 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.

¶23

(v) 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

(vi) 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.

¶25

The pending application, if any, too stands disposed of.

¶26

Order Date :- 12.12.2024 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶27

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lateeq Alias Laheek v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lateeq Alias Laheek v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ravi Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Suman Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Farmaan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neelam Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ashish Kumar vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Ravi Prakash Upadhyay vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Govt. Lko and 4 Others