Dismissed¶¶17

Naushad Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC16 May 2025ABAIL/523/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Naushad Ali; anticipatory bail; Section 438 CrPC; SC/ST Act Sections 3(2)v, 3(2)va, 3(1)da; IPC Sections 504, 506, 307; Case Crime No. 305 of 2019; P.S. Raniganj, District Pratapgarh; maintainability of anticipatory bail under SC/ST Act; Prathvi Raj Chauhan (2020) 4 SCC 727; Chandra Raj @ Chandra; Kailash; caste-related epithets; application dismissed; Manish Mathur J.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:29046; Order Date 16.5.2025.

What did the court decide?

Holding Prathvi Raj Chauhan (Supreme Court) clearly applicable: there is no specific embargo on entertaining an anticipatory bail application even where provisions of the SC/ST Act have been invoked. ¶¶12

Naushad Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC is maintainable where provisions of the SC/ST Act have been invoked in the FIR. +1 more

¶¶8

Court's answer

Holding Prathvi Raj Chauhan (Supreme Court) clearly applicable: there is no specific embargo on entertaining an anticipatory bail application even where provisions of the SC/ST Act have been invoked.

¶¶12

Ratio / Principle

Such anticipatory-bail jurisdiction is nonetheless to be exercised sparingly, and only where even an ex facie examination of the FIR shows that the SC/ST Act provisions do not appear applicable.

¶¶12

Key takeaways

On prima facie examination of the FIR, caste-related epithets are alleged to have been cast upon the informant in a public place, and aspects attributable to the SC/ST Act therefore appear to be alleged.ratio¶¶14
No occasion to grant any indulgence, since the applicant remains free to challenge the matter under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.ratio¶¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail under S. 438 CrPC sought by Naushad Ali in Case Crime No. 305 of 2019 (Ss. 504, 506, 307 IPC; Ss. 3(2)v, 3(2)va, 3(1)da SC/ST Act), P.S. Raniganj, District Pratapgarh. The learned AGA opposed maintainability on the ground that SC/ST Act provisions had been invoked, placing reliance on coordinate-bench decisions in Chandra Raj @ Chandra (Crim. Misc. Bail Application No. 8192 of 2024) and Kailash (Crim. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 9396 of 2022); counsel for the applicant relied on Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727. The Court held, applying Prathvi Raj Chauhan, that there is no specific embargo on entertaining an anticipatory bail application even where SC/ST Act provisions are invoked, but such jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and only where even an ex facie examination of the FIR shows the Act inapplicable. On prima facie examination, the FIR alleges caste-related epithets cast upon the informant in a public place, so aspects attributable to the SC/ST Act appear alleged; no occasion for indulgence was found, the applicant being free to challenge the matter under the SC/ST Act. Application dismissed. (Manish Mathur, J.; Order Date 16.5.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:29046.)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29046

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 523 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Naushad Ali Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Raza Mehdi,Syed Husain Mehdi S.H.Me Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite party no.1-State while power and short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.2-informant has been filed by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Ojha, Advocate which is taken on record.

¶7

First Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with regard to Case Crime no.305 of 2019, under Sections 504, 506, 307 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)v, 3(2)va, 3(1)da SC/ST Act, P.S. Raniganj, District Pratapgarh.

¶8

At the very out-set Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned AGA has opposed maintainability of Anticipatory Bail Application with the submission that since provisions of SC/ST Act have been invoked, the anticipatory bail application could not be maintainable.

¶9

Learned AGA has placed reliance on judgments of Coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Chandra Raj @ Chandra versus State of U.P. & Ors. passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8192 of 2024 and Kailash versus State of U.P. passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.9396 of 2022 while learned counsel for applicant has refuted the aforesaid submission and has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan versus Union of India & Ors.; reported in (2020)4 Supreme Court Cases 727

¶10

with the submission that there is no absolute bar in maintainability of anticipatory bail application even in case provisions of SC/ST Act have been invoked.

¶11

Learned counsel for applicant further submits that as per contents of FIR, allegations levelled is of applicant alongwith co-accused attacking and inflicting injuries upon informant and his family members on account of dispute pertaining to immoveable property. It is submitted that the aforesaid immoveable property does not belong to informant and civil litigation with regard to aforesaid is already pending consideration.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra) is clearly applicable in which it has been held that there is no specific embargo in entertaining an anticipatory bail application even where provisions of SC/ST Act have been invoked. It has however been indicated that such a jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and only in case even on an ex facie examination of FIR, provisions of SC/ST Act do not appear to be applicable.

¶13

Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances, the FIR makes it evident that caste related epithets are allegedly said to have been cast upon the informant in a public place.

¶14

From a prima facie examination of FIR, aspects attributable to the SC/ST Act therefore appears to be alleged.

¶15

In keeping it judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra) as well as by Coordinate Benches of this Court, this Court does not find any

¶16

occasion to grant any indulgence since the applicant is very well challenge the same under the provisions of SC/ST Act.

¶17

In view thereof, the application is dismissed .

¶18

Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Subodh/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Naushad Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naushad Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Divya Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Sectt.Lko and Another

Ritesh Singh @ Jeet Singh Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko and 3 Others

Nadeem vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vijay Shankar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Yuva Kalyaan Evam Prantiya Rakshak Dal, Lko. and 4 Others

Madhulika vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.