Allowed

Tabasheer Hasan @ Sagar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2024CRLA/815/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) SC/ST Act against rejection of anticipatory bail in a case involving IPC and SC/ST Act offences. The court noted the charge sheet was filed and no non-cooperation was alleged, set aside the order rejecting anticipatory bail, and directed release on furnishing bond and sureties with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 16.01.2024 rejecting anticipatory bail set aside; appellant to surrender within 20 days and be released on anticipatory bail on personal bond and two sureties with conditions.

Tabasheer Hasan @ Sagar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:82005

¶2

Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 815 of 2024 Appellant :- Tabasheer Hasan @ Sagar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mohd. Amir Khan,Sheelam Devi,Surya Prakash Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶3

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶4

Counter Affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. is taken on record.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record.

¶6

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 16.01.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District- Lucknow in Anticipatory Bail Application No.98 of 2024 in Case Crime No.433 of 2022 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 332, 353, 342, 364 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Thakurganj, District- Lucknow.

¶7

The coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.03.2024 has passed the following order:-

¶8

"Order on appeal

¶9

1. Heard.

¶10

2. Issue notice to the respondent no.2 returnable at an early date.

¶11

3. List this case on 30.04.2024.

¶12

Order on C.M.A. No.1/2024

¶13

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶14

2. The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 16.01.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District- Lucknow in Anticipatory Bail Application No.8326 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No.433 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 332, 353, 342, 364 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha) and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police StationThakurganj, District- Lucknow.

¶15

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case. As per the prosecution case, complainant along with other members came to the premises of appellant for inspection regarding the electricity theft then on gun point, they were taken into custody and brought to the house of appellant in a Car where they were beaten brutally, as a result, they received internal injury. He further submitted that during the course of investigation, CCTV Footage was examined by the Investigating Officer but no car was seen in the footage. He further submitted that no alleged offence is made out against the appellant but the charge sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in the most mechanical manner. He further submitted that during the course of investigation, protection was granted to the appellant by the Writ Court vide order dated 29.08.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.6213 of 2022. He further submitted that co-accused, Salman Tanvir has been enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.12.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.3524/2023, therefore, appellant is also entitled to get parity of the co-accused, Salman Tanvir.

¶16

4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of appellant but he did not dispute this fact that no car was seen in the CCTV footage which was allegedly used in the incident. He also conceded the fact that the co-accused, Salman Tanvir has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶17

5. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, impugned order as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that as per the prosecution case, the complainant was brought to the house of appellant by a car but no such car was seen in the CCTV footage, it is also evident that co-accused, Salman Tanvir has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to be released on interim bail.

¶18

6. In case, the appellant- Tabasheer Hasan @ Sagar involved in the aforementioned crime is taken into custody, he shall be released on interim bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶19

(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 interim bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶20

(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 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of interim bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued

¶22

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.

¶23

(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 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 interim bail and proceed against him in accordance with law."

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that charge sheet in the matter has been filed. Co-accused Tannu Tanveer Hasan and Yamin @ Syed Zamin Abbas, Salman Tanveer and Tausheer Hasan @ Sagar has been granted interim protection vide order dated 29.8.2022. One other co-accused Syed Zamin Abbas Rizvi @ Yameen has also been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 2.12.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1021 of 2024 by this Court.

¶25

He further submits that it is not a case of the prosecution that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation. The applicant undertakes to cooperate in the trial. The applicant has explained the criminal history in paragraph 31 to the bail application.

¶26

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail, however, does not dispute the aforesaid facts.

¶27

On due consideration to the fact that charge sheet has been filed so also the fact that it is not the case of the prosecution that the applicant has not cooperated in the investigation, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled for anticipatory bail and the order of learned court below is liable to be set aside.

¶28

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District- Lucknow in Anticipatory Bail Application No.98 of 2024 in Case Crime No.433 of 2022 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 332, 353, 342, 364 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(Da), 3(1) (Dha) and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Thakurganj, District- Lucknow, is set aside.

¶29

In view of the above, the accused applicant is directed to surrender before trial

¶30

court within twenty days from today. The accused applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail by learned trial court on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the following conditions.

¶31

(i) The applicant 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 tamper with the evidence;

¶32

(ii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court;

¶33

(iii)The applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness;

¶34

(iv)The applicant shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed unless personal presence is exempted;

¶35

(v) In case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶36

It is made clear that the observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.

¶37

Order Date :- 9.12.2024 Madhu D.R/P.S

¶38

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

Tabasheer Hasan @ Sagar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tabasheer Hasan @ Sagar 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

Mulla Mukarram @ Mukarramin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko.

Anuj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Om Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

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

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

Soofiyan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.