Meraj Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34430

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 240 of 2025 Appellant :- Meraj Ahmad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- P.K. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ajeet Kumar,Parashu Ram Kanaujia,Savita Nandan

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State and Sri Ajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶6

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State is taken on record.

¶7

Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act against bail rejection order dated 23.11.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, District Lucknow rejecting the bail application No. 468 of 2024 of the appellant in case crime No. 286 of 2021 under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3(1) (Da) (Dha) SC/ST Act of P.S. Jahangeerganj, District Ambedkar Nagar.

¶8

As per contents of FIR, informant gave substantial amount of money to appellant for the purpose of execution of sale deed for immovable property, which was not executed in favour of the informant despite consistent demand being made. It is stated that on 15.01.2021, appellant attacked the informant, resulting in serious injuries upon him while making caste based epithets.

¶9

It is submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be quite evident from the fact that in his deposition as P.W.1, the informant has not corroborated prosecution version but the trial court does not appear to have considered the aforesaid fact. It is submitted that the appellant has previous criminal history of seven cases, which has been explained. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 16.10.2024 and the trial has not been concluded as yet.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State as well as learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2 have opposed the appeal but did not dispute the said fact.

¶11

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned

¶12

counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, it is evident that the informant himself appearing as P.W.1 during the course of trial has not corroborated the prosecution version and has in fact given a contrary statement that no such incident occurred at the behest of appellant. The aforesaid aspect would require consideration of trial court during evidence. The appellant is under incarceration since 16.10.2024 with trial not having been concluded. It is admitted that the appellant has seven case previous criminal history which has been explained.

¶13

Considering facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for parties, without commenting upon merits, it appears that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. In view of above, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly appeal is allowed and the order dated 23.11.2024 is set aside.

¶14

Let appellant (Meraj Ahmad) be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(iii) 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.

¶18

(iv) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶19

(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(vi) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.6.2025 Preeti.

¶22

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Meraj Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meraj Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Ravindra Kumar Srivastava and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Deptt. of Madhyamik Shikha and Others

C/M Ishwar Sharan Mahavir Inter College Thru Manager Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Secondary Govt. of U.P. and Others

Akhil Foundation, Shadiyabad, Ghazipur Thru. Its Manager Surendra Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Technical Education, Lucknow and Others

C/M Awadh Academy Jahagirabad, Barabanki Thru. Manager Avadhesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Basic Education Deptt., Lko. and 8 Others

Shahid Raza and Another Vs Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Mandal Ayodhya, Ayodhya and 2 Others

Sardar Ajeet Singh @ Ajeet Singh Vs District Judge, Ayodhya and Another