Melhu Alias Imamuddin vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:9053

Court No. - 5

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10771 of 2024 Appellant :- Melhu Alias Imamuddin Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bishram Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Matter is taken up in the revised call.

¶6

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Kushinagar in Session Trial No. 488 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 107 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 354B, 115, 376, 511 I.P.C. Sections 66, 67 of Information Technology Act and Sections 3 (2)(V), 3 (1)(Da) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Ramkola, District- Kushinagar. The applicantappellant is in jail since 19.03.2024.

¶7

The bail application of the applicant was rejected by the learned trial court on 19.09.2024.

¶8

The following arguments made by Shri Bishram Tiwari, learned counsel on behalf of the applicant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Shrawan Kumar Dubey, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant for grant of bail:

¶9

The applicant is a law abiding citizen who cooperated with the police investigations and had joined the trial.

¶10

2.The applicant never influenced witnesses or tampered with the evidence.

¶11

The applicant never adopted any dilatory tactics or impeded the process of the trial.

¶12

The trial has moved at an inordinately slow pace. The applicant is not responsible for the delay in the trial.

¶13

The status report sent by the trial court records that all prosecution witnesses have been examined. The stage is set for proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C./defence evidence. There is no possibility of the applicant influencing any of the witnesses.

¶14

The trial is not likely to conclude in the near future.

¶15

The applicant has to gather various defence evidences to be tendered before the trial court to establish his innocence.

¶16

Continued incarceration of the applicant will disable him from crafting an effective defence strategy, gathering evidence in his support thereof and tendering the same before the learned trial court to absolve himself of the charges. Any further incarceration would be to the detriment of the defence of the applicant and contrary to the norms of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence.

¶17

This Court in Prabhat Gangwar v. State of U.P. (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2586 of 2023) while considering the grant of enlarging an accused on bail for preparing his defence and gathering evidence to tender the same before the learned trial court for establishing his innocence held:

¶18

"Nature and gravity of the offence is certainly liable to be considered by the court while considering grant of bail. The Court has also to factor the likelihood of whether the accused committed the offence while deciding a bail application. The court also has to determine in the facts of the case whether the accused needs to be set at liberty to frame his defence and gather evidence to refute the prosecution case and establish his innocence. The bail court has to examine whether continued incarceration would disable the accused from tendering an effective defence of his case. This is a demand of processual fairness in criminal jurisprudence.

¶19

Setting an accused at liberty at large on this ground cannot be applied mechanically in all cases. The issue has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case while doing so. All relevant facts including the evidences in the record, the conduct of the accused during the investigation as well as trial have to be adverted to before a decision is made in this regard."

¶20

Considering the aforesaid parameters in light of the

¶21

above facts of this case, I am of the opinion that Prabhat Gangwar (supra) is applicable to the facts of this case.

¶22

The applicant does not have any criminal history apart from the instant case.

¶23

In the light of the preceding discussion, facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence and evidence the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order dated 19.09.2024 suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶24

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

¶25

Let the appellant- Melhu Alias Imamuddin 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 below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶26

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.

¶27

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

¶28

The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered

¶29

by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023).

¶30

The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the applicant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the applicant.

¶31

Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Pravin

¶32

Digitally signed by :- PRAVIN VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Melhu Alias Imamuddin v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Melhu Alias Imamuddin 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Umakant Tripathi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dharmendra Yadav Alias Puchchi vs State of U.P.

Shri Chandra Singh vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Amarnath Saini and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Dharam Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Savitri vs State of U.P. and 2 Others