Jahangir Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:8768

Court No. - 14

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1676 of 2024

Appellant :- Jahangir Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Harpreet Singh,Anuj Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Harpreet Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the entire 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 with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lucknow in Fifth Bail Application No. 2703 of 2024 in case crime no. 87 of 2012, under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, registered at Police Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in this case he is innocent and has falsely been implicated for committing murder of the deceased with co-accused Smt Geeta who was wife of the deceased. It is also submitted that there is allegation that there were illicit relations between the present appellant and co-accused Geeta but there is no any material on record to show that both were in affair and caused death of the deceased together. It is also submitted that the rope by which strangulation is said to be made was recovered at the instance of co-accused Geeta who was convicted and sentenced and now is on bail from this Court. It is further submitted that prosecution has examined five witnesses till now but there is nothing against the appellant. Trial is not possible to be concluded in near future and appellant is in jail since 08.05.2022, having no criminal history. 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. 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.

¶9

On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and contended that there was illicit relation between co-accused

¶10

Geeta and the present appellant and both of them strangulated the deceased. Co-accused Geeta was convicted and sentenced in separate session trial and the present appellant was absconding that was the reason he could not be tried together. There is C.D.R. showing conversation between the deceased and his brother/ informant. It is also contended that there were four criminal cases against the appellant as criminal history which the appellant has not explained in this regard learned counsel for the appellant contended that in all the cases name of accused is Jahangir but father's name are different, therefore, it cannot be said that present appellant was involved in all the cases but they were different persons.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶12

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that till now five prosecution witnesses has been explained and trial is not possible to be concluded in near future and also the appellant is in jail since 08.05.2022 and without making any further comment on the merit of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below 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 to be allowed.

¶13

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

¶14

Let the appellant Jahangir involved in Case Crime No.87 of 2012, under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, registered at Police Station Madiyaon, District Lucknow be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions.

¶15

Further, before issuing the release order, the (sureties as well as the address of the appellant be verified) .

¶16

The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶17

The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶18

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

¶19

The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

¶20

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 her 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 :- 11.2.2025 Suraj Srivastav

¶23

Digitally signed by :- SURAJ SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Jahangir v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jahangir v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Mursheed @ Mo. Murseed and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rubi Devi Thru. Her Husband Mukesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Chhotkauo @ Israil Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Nankoo vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another

Rajmani Singh Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Smt. Mayavati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another