Allowed

Naseem Alias Jhabbal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Oct 2024CRLA/3242/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed Criminal Appeal No. 3242 of 2024 and granted bail to the appellant, Naseem Alias Jhabbal, under the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act (actually SC/ST Act based on text). The court noted the trial is unlikely to conclude soon, an injured witness is non-cooperative, and co-accused are on bail.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail with personal bond and two sureties subject to conditions of presence and no abuse of liberty.

Naseem Alias Jhabbal vs State of U.P. Thru… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:78144

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3242 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Naseem Alias Jhabbal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Narendra Pratap Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Jay Prakash, 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 03.02.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 279 of 2021 arising out of F.I.R. No. 232 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3(2) (v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Baldirai, District Sultanpur.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case along with four persons, namely, Shiv Bhushan, Ramjeet Yadav, Ram Singh, Rakesh Kumar Yadav and two unknown persons with the general allegation of open fire. It is further submitted that the injured witnesses, namely, Kariya Dubey and Jagga have categorically stated that all the named and unknown persons opened fire at them and in the said firing, Suresh Kumar died and they (Kariya Dubey and Jagga) received injuries. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that after investigation, name of Shiv Bhushan and Ramjeet Yadav was deleted by the Investigating Officer with the observation that they were falsely implicated in the F.I.R. and the charge sheet was filed against 15 persons including the appellant. It is, thus, submitted that the statements of injured witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not reliable as in

¶9

their statements, Kariya Dubey and Jagga made allegations against all the accused persons, but name of two persons were dropped by the Investigating Officer. It is also submitted that earlier the appellant was implicated in 3 criminal cases due to political rivalry and in all the cases, he is on bail. It is next submitted that the appellant is in jail since 14.08.2019 and till today, only three witnesses have been examined. Injured-Kariya Dubey has not supported the prosecution version and the other injured person, namely, Jagga is not cooperating in the trial despite the issuance of summons against him and there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near further. It is lastly submitted that the co-accused, Wahid Ansari and Amarjeet Yadav have already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 682 of 2022 and 286 of 2021, respectively. It is, thus, submitted that the appellant, who is in jail since 14.08.2019, is entitled for bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant, but does not dispute the fact that initially, five named and two unknown person were named in the F.I.R., however, after investigation, name of two persons were dropped by the Investigating Officer and charge sheet was submitted against 15 persons including the appellant. He also does not dispute the fact that co-accused Wahid Ansari and Amarjeet Yadav have already been granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 682 of 2022 and 286 of 2021, respectively.

¶11

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the lower court record as well as the judgment of the court below dated 03.02.2021, it is evident that the injured-Jagga is not appearing before the trial court. It is also evident that the co-accused have already been granted bail and the appellant is in jail since 14.08.2019.

¶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

¶13

concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶14

Impugned order dated 03.02.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 279 of 2021 arising out of F.I.R. No. 232 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 120B, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Baldirai, District Sultanpur is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let appellant, Naseem Alias Jhabbal be released on bail in the aforesaid F.I.R. No. 232 of 2019 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 sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(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.

¶19

(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

¶20

absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient 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 :- 25.11.2024 VKS

¶22

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

Naseem Alias Jhabbal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naseem Alias Jhabbal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Neelam Kaushal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vasudev Goswami @ Basudev Goswami Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dinesh Kumar Yadav @ Dinesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rakesh Tripathi @ Rakesh Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Mohd. Hasnain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Mohammad Waseem Alias Waseem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another