Sharif Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3411 of 2024

Sharif Ali

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Bhagwati Prasad Nigam, Anand Tripathi, Anurag Shukla, Dinesh Chandra Shukla, Ram Naresh Yadav, Vineet Kumar Chaurasia, Vishal Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Anil Kumar Akela Court No. - 11

¶9

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. as well as Sri Anil Kumar Akela, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4.

¶11

By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989, the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 27.09.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 2139 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 315 of 2024 under Sections 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 115(2), 118(2), 126(2) BNS and Section 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S.Atrauli, District-Hardoi.

¶12

While pressing instant bail appeal, learned counsel for the appellant stated that appellant, having one criminal history which has been explained in para 14 of the affidavit filed in support of present bail appeal, is in jail since 30.08.2024.

¶13

It is also stated that if the case of prosecution is taken on its face value, according to which, the appellant is the main accused though not correct, then in that eventuality also, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail for the reason that the main witnesses of the fact i.e. informant and four injured witnesses have already been examined before the trial Court and in this view of the matter, there is no possibility of influencing the main witnesses of the fact by the appellant.

¶14

CRLA No. 3411 of 2024

¶15

2

¶16

Further stated that in fact it is not a case in which the offence under Section 307 IPC is attracted as a bare perusal of the FIR would show that without premeditation of mind and in the spur of moment, the incident occurred and the injured(s) sustained injuries and therefore, the case of the appellant would ultimately fall either under Section 324 or 325 IPC.

¶17

Thus, taking note of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. and also Sri Anil Kumar Akela, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

¶19

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., injury report(s) as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation.

¶20

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances which prima facie indicates that incident occurred without premeditation of mind on spur of moment as also keeping in view the fact that the main witnesses of the fact have already been examined and also that trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶21

The impugned order dated 27.09.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 2139 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 315 of 2024 under Sections 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 115(2), 118(2), 126(2) BNS and Section 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Atrauli, District-Hardoi, is hereby set aside.

¶22

Let appellant - Sharif Ali, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶23

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

¶24

CRLA No. 3411 of 2024

¶25

3

¶26

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

¶27

(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶28

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶29

(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.

¶30

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶31

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

¶32

(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.

¶33

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations 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 made in this order.

¶34

August 27, 2025 Vinay/-

¶35

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶36

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

Sharif Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharif Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

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

Rati Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home Lucknow and Anr.

Mohit Rawat Minor Thru. Father Mahesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Upendra Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Juvenile X Thru. His Mother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Vijay Ram Verma vs State of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Krishan Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another