Usman Alias Tanaku v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC12 Jun 2025CRLA/1734/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail appeal allowed under S.14-A(2) SC/ST Act; parity with co-accused granted bail; IPC 394, 411, 413, 302, 201, 120-B and S.3(2)(V) SC/ST Act; Case Crime No.253 of 2022; P.S. Bela, District Auraiya; Special Judge Dacoity Affected Area Act, Auraiya order dated 18.03.2024 set aside; appellant in custody since 01.12.2022; no criminal history; personal bond and two sureties; bail conditions and cancellation clause; Usman Alias Tanaku v. State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court; Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.; decided 9.7.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:114089.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned bail rejection order dated 18.03.2024 set aside; appellant Usman Alias Tanaku to be released on bail in Case Crime No.253 of 2022 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions (¶16-¶22).

Usman Alias Tanaku vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 18.03.2024 of the Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area Act, Auraiya rejecting the appellant's bail application in Case Crime No.253 of 2022 should be set aside and the appellant released on bail.

¶¶8

Court's answer

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, nature of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and severity of punishment, the appellant has made out a case for bail and the Court below erred in rejecting his bail application.

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

The impugned bail rejection order suffers from infirmity and illegality and is liable to be set aside, and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶¶13

Key takeaways

The appellant shall be released on bail in Case Crime No.253 of 2022 on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, subject to conditions including non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of prosecution witnesses, appearance on dates fixed, and commission of no similar offence; breach entitles the prosecution to move for cancellation before this Court.ratio¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.) allowed a criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 against rejection of bail. Appellant Usman Alias Tanaku, accused in Case Crime No.253 of 2022 under Sections 394, 411, 413, 302, 201, 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Bela, District Auraiya, was in jail since 01.12.2022 with no criminal history. Relying on parity, counsel pointed out that four co-accused with almost similar roles had been enlarged on bail by coordinate Benches. Holding that the Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area Act, Auraiya erred and that the order dated 18.03.2024 suffered from infirmity and illegality, the Court set it aside and directed release on a personal bond with two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering with evidence, pressurising witnesses and committing similar offences; breach permits the prosecution to seek cancellation before the High Court. (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:114089; Order Date 9.7.2025.)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114089

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1734 of 2025

¶4

Appellant :- Usman Alias Tanaku Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Bishram Tiwari,Upendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

As per office report, notice has been served on opposite party no. 2, however, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 to oppose the appeal.

¶8

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant - Usman Alias Tanaku with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area Act, Auraiya and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.253 of 2022, under Sections 394, 411, 413, 302, 201, 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Bela, District Auraiya.

¶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. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are missing in this case. It is also submitted that nothing incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the appellant nor on his pointing out. It is also submitted that the co-accused Aftab @ Altaf, Mustkeem @ Chhote, Waris Ali and Neeraj Tiwari, having almost similar role, have been granted bail vide orders dated 19.5.2025, 28.2.2024, 7.2.2024 & 6.9.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application Nos.25597 2024, 31098 of 2023, Crl. Appeal No. 8223 of 2023 & 11621 of 2023 respectively. The role of the present appellant is not distinguishable from the role of co-accused who have been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Benches of this Court.

¶10

It is further submitted that the court concerned 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 also submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 01.12.2022.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record.

¶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 Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. 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 set-aside.

¶15

Let the appellant Usman Alias Tanaku involved in Case Crime No.253 of 2022, under Sections 394, 411, 413, 302, 201, 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Bela, District Auraiya, 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. 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

¶21

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.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 9.7.2025 ss

¶24

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

Usman Alias Tanaku v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usman Alias Tanaku 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

Amruddin Ansari vs State of U.P. and Another

Rambabu vs State of U.P. and Another

Udaiveer Yadav Alias Udal and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Rishipal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj Patel vs State of U.P. and Another