Allowed

Sartaj v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024CRLA/6540/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed by Sartaj against the rejection of his second bail application. The Court held that the appellant had made out a case for bail and set aside the lower court's order, directing his release on bond and sureties subject to standard conditions, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the criminal charge.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the second bail application was set aside; the appellant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to the stipulated conditions.

Sartaj vs State of U.P. — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:152114

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 6540 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Sartaj Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjive Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

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

¶7

As per the office report, notice has been personally served on opposite party No.2 but none appeared on his behalf to press the appeal nor any counter affidavit has been filed.

¶8

Instant criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act has been filed against the order dated 15.5.2024, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District and Session Judge, Budaun, in IInd Bail Application No.1267 of 2024 (Sartaj vs. State of UP), (S.S.T. No.396 of 2022), arising out of Case Crime No.100 of 2022, under Sections 323, 307, 324, 504, 506 IPC & Sections 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act, Police Station- Bilsi, District- Budaun.

¶9

As per prosecution version as appearing from the FIR and statement of witnesses, the informant Ramesh was confronted by Sartaj and Iqbal, who are real brothers and residing in his mohalla. They engaged in abusing him and when he objected to this, they insulted him by using caste denoting words. They attacked him by 'farsa' (a heavy cutting weapon). The informant got seriously injured in the incident and lodged and FIR on the same date i.e. 22.3.2022 at about 16:42 hours in police station concerned. In injury report, the injured received following injuries on his person:- (i) Abraision of 1.5X0.5 cm, over left side of forehead, which is 6cm above from mid of left eyebrow (2) Incised wound of 3.5X0.5cm, over back side of left elbow. In the opinion of Doctor both injuries were simple in nature and injury No.2 was caused by sharp edged object. Both the injuries were fresh in duration. Independent witnessed namely Pankaj, Irfan, Narendra and Suneel in their statement stated that at the time of incident, they had seen that Iqbal had caught hold of informant Ramesh and

¶10

Sartaj attacked him by 'farsa', in which informant suffered serious injuries. Ramesh anyhow got himself rescued otherwise they would have killed him.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned court below has rejected the bail application of the appellant whereas the co-accused Ikbal has been released on bail by orders of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.6215 of 2022, although, the role of causing injuries has been specifically attributed to present appellant in FIR but none of the injuries found on the person was dangerous to life. Out of two injuries, one injury is simple in nature and only injury No.2 which is incised wound on back side of left elbow was found to be caused by sharp edged weapon. These injuries have been found on non vital part of the body. There is no report of Doctor to the effect that the injuries found on the person of the injured were dangerous to life or grievous in nature. Even in injury report, it is stated that the patient is non compliance, refused to take treatment. Thus, on facts of the case, no case under Section 307 IPC is made out. Appellant has been falsely implicated in the case due to ulterior motive. He has no previous criminal history. He is in jail since 30.3.2022. The appellant is ready to furnish reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned and will abide the conditions, if he is enlarged on bail by this Court.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and submitted that the informant and witnesses have supported the prosecution case but could not dispute the aforesaid factual submissions of the case as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶13

Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the offence but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶14

Accordingly, the appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 15.5.2024 rejecting the second bail application of the appellant is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let the appellant- Sartaj be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶16

(i) That the appellant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.

¶17

(ii) That 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.

¶18

(iii) That after his release, the appellant shall not involve in any criminal activity.

¶19

(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the appellant on bail.

¶20

It is made clear that in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the appellant.

¶21

It is also made clear that the observations made in this order are limited to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.

¶22

Order Date :- 18.9.2024 Kamarjahan

¶23

Digitally signed by :- KAMARJAHAN ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sartaj v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sartaj v. State of U.P.

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

Smt. Imrana Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. and 2 Others

Mishrilal vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Anand Prakash Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sher Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ranveer Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Pramod Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another