Mohd. Imtiyaz @ Kallu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Another

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 05.10.2024 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2628/2024, arising out of Case Crime No.168/2024, under Sections 302/34/201 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3 (2) v SC/ST Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

¶13

While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 14.06.2024 and several witnesses are yet to be examined and in this aspect of the case, the conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak, as such, taking note of the period of incarceration as also other aspects of the case, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶14

In regard to period of incarceration, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 SCC 712 and Paras Ram Vishnoi. Vs. The Director General Bureau of Investigation , passed in Criminal Appeal No.693 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) 3610 of 2020) , as per which, bail can be granted to those accused persons on the ground that there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future and there is a long incarceration period of that accused. Relevant para-16 of the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra) is quoted below:-

¶15

"This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, Courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, Courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail."

¶16

5 . In the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi (supra) , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed regarding point of incarceration period and delay in trial. The relevant part of the said judgment is quoted below:-

¶17

CRLA No. 1988 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

"On consideration of the matter, we are of the view that pending the trial we cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period of time and taking into consideration the period of custody and that the other accused are yet to lead defence evidence while the appellant has already stated he does not propose to lead any evidence, we are inclined to grant bail to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court."

¶20

It is further stated that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and from the possession of the appellant the prosecution has shown the recovery of key of vehicle/car alleged to be involved in the crime, which is bogus as there is no independent witness to it.

¶21

It is also stated that the weapon used in crime i.e. knife, as per the case of prosecution, has been recovered on pointing out of co-accused Kuldeep Kumar Kesarwani and according to the case of prosecution, the appellant was present at the time of recovery. However, this recovery is also bogus as there is no independent witness to it.

¶22

It is further stated that as the charge sheet has already been filed before the trial court therefore it would not be possible for the appellant to tamper the evidence of prosecution an also influence the witnesses of prosecution.

¶23

It is further stated that co-accused persons namely Sarita Saroj and Kuldeep Kumar Kesarwani have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 13.10.2025 and 27.10.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4757 of 2025 and Criminal Appeal No. 3428 of 2025. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

¶24

Learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri P.K. Singh Bisen, learned counsel for the side opposite vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, however, they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

¶25

Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

¶26

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order and also that the appellant is in jail since 14.06.2025 as well as that co-accused persons namely Sarita Saroj and Kuldeep Kumar Kesarwani have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed .

¶27

Order dated 05.10.2024 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2628/2024, arising out of Case Crime No.168/2024, under Sections 302/34/201 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3 (2) v SC/ST Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.

¶28

Let the appellant- Mohd. Imtiyaz @ Kallu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶29

(i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶30

(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

¶31

(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶32

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶33

(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.

¶34

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either

¶35

CRLA No. 1988 of 2025

¶36

3

¶37

personally or through counsel.

¶38

(vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶39

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶40

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶41

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.

¶42

November 13, 2025 Arun/-

¶43

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶44

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Imtiyaz @ Kallu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Imtiyaz @ Kallu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Afzal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs District Magistrate, Shravasti and 2 Others

Lala Alias Intsar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Satish Lodhi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Zafar @ Chanda vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Lakshmi (Detenue) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others