Sushil @ Sijal vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:4802

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10587 of 2024

Appellant :- Sushil @ Sijal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dhiraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Sushil @ Sijal with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 9.10.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Saharanpur in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.3845 of 2024 and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 131 of 2022 (S.S.T. No.2798 of 2022) under Sections 308, 325, 323, 452, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3(1) Da, Dha and Section 3 (2) (5A) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Nanauta, District- Saharanpur.

¶8

Four named accused persons including the present accused appellant along with other associates came to the house of the informant and made assault upon his wife, the injured, by the use of lathi, danda and balkati, who sustained serious injuries. FIR was lodged.

¶9

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. As per FIR several persons made assault altogether upon the wife of the informant but as per medical report she has sustained only two injuries and that too are not dangerous to life. It is also submitted that no specific role of assault or weapon has been assigned to the present appellant. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is not plausible on the point that when the wife of the informant was beaten by the accused persons they do not touch the informant at all. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit. The FIR of this case has been lodged very belatedly after 7 days of

¶10

the occurrence without any plausible explanation of delay. It is also submitted that the co-accused Raman, having identical role, has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 3.1.2025 while allowing the criminal appeal no.11326 of 2024 filed by him. It is also submitted that the trial Court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Appellant is in jail since 4.9.2024. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶11

On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community and there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 9.10.2024 but however, he could not dispute the factual aspect of the matter that no specific role of assault or weapon has been assigned to the present appellant.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶13

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶14

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside.

¶15

Let the appellant - Sushil @ Sijal involved in Case Crime No. 131 of 2022 (S.S.T. No.2798 of 2022) under Sections 308, 325, 323, 452, 504 I.P.C. & Section 3(1) Da, Dha and Section 3 (2)(5A) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Nanauta, District- Saharanpur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶16

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

¶17

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

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

¶19

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶20

(v) 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.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 8.1.2025

¶23

ss

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sushil @ Sijal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil @ Sijal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Golu vs State of U.P. and Another

Harsh vs State of U.P. and Another

Bablu vs State of Up Others

Rijwana Bano vs State of U.P. and Another

Sonu Alias Mohd. Fardeen vs State of U.P. and Another

Nasir Quraishi vs State of U.P. and 11 Others