Allowed

Ikram Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Jul 2024CRLA/5082/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, dealing with a bail appeal under the SC/ST Act and IPC provisions, observed that while the liberty guaranteed by the Constitution includes access to justice and speedy trial, courts must balance societal risk. The court held the appellant had made a case for bail, allowing release on personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail subject to personal bond and two sureties with conditions against tampering and influencing witnesses.

Ikram Chaudhary vs State of U.P. and Another — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:116157

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5082 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Ikram Chaudhary Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Araf Khan,Arshi Rani Qadeer Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

An affidavit of compliance regarding service of notice upon opposite party no.2 is also filed . The same is taken on record.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶9

Present criminal appeal is preferred against the bail rejection order dated 8.4.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, District Saharanpur, rejecting the bail of the accused-Ikram Chaudhary in S.S.S.T. No.2386 of 2023, Crime No.287 of 2023, Sections 147, 323, 328, 376-D, 504, 506 of IPC & Ss. 3 (2) (v), SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Saharanpur. It has further been prayed to release the appellant on bail during pendency of trial in the said case.

¶10

This is the second criminal appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant. His first criminal appeal was dismissed on merit by this Court, vide order dated 1.12.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10686 of 2023.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there are five accused persons. General allegations have been made against all the accused. Out of those five, three have been granted bail by this Court and one has been exonerated during investigation. It is also submitted that during examination, informant/victim (PW-1), has not even made any allegation against the applicant. Since the statement of the victim has been recorded, therefore, there is no chance of tempering the witness. The criminal history against the appellant has been properly explained. It is next argued that the prosecution has moved an application under Section 319 of Cr PC against coaccsued Aaris, who was exonerated during investigation.

¶12

Therefore, a de novo trial is being conducted against him and there is no possibility of early disposal of the case against the applicant. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 20.8.2023. In case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate in the trial.

¶13

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.

¶14

In Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:-

¶15

"15. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India SCC para-15 it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶16

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The criminal appeal is, accordingly, allowed .

¶17

Let appellant, Ikram Chaudhary be released on bail in the aforementioned case crime on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶18

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

¶19

(2). The appellant will not influence any witness.

¶20

(3). The appellant will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶21

(4). 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶23

Order Date :- 22.7.2024 RKK/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR KANNAUJIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ikram Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ikram Chaudhary v. State of 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramkumar @ Ramu vs State of Up and Another

Ramkumar @ Ramu vs State of Up and Another

Bhurey Yadav @ Ved Prakash vs State of U.P. and Another

jUGAL Prasad @ Jhularu Prajapati vs State of Up and Another

Shiv Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Jasveer Singh Alias Bachcha Singh vs State of Up Others