Bablu Nishad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4809

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3475 of 2024

Appellant :- Bablu Nishad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Jyoti Rawat,Ram Samujh Rawat Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Vakalatnama filed by Sri Rajeev Mishra, Advocate on behalf of the opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

¶8

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 10.04.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No. 13 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 584 of 2023, under Sections 302, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Bikapur, District Ayodhya/Faizabad.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and is in jail since 14.11.2023. He further submits that during the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and one of the witnesses, namely, Nisha @ Neelu, stated in her statement that (Mukesh Kumar) deceased was trying to talk with her but she was reluctant, thereafter, he repeatedly making call to her and on the date of incident, he visited her house and they were seen by her mother, who called her father, and her father slapped the deceased and also called the appellant, and appellant forced the deceased to go away as he was in drunken condition. He further submits that till today, not even a single witness has been examined, thus, appellant, who is in jail since 14.11.2023, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to

¶10

be set aside.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the prayer of the appellant and submit that this is a case of honor killing but they do not dispute the fact that till today, not even a single witness has been examined.

¶12

Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the complainant and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., post mortem report as well as other relevant documents including the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is evident that till today, not even a single witness has been examined. Apparently, all these facts were not considered by the court below at the time of rejecting the bail application vide impugned order dated 10.4.2024.

¶13

In view of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶14

Order dated 10.04.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No. 13 of 2024 arising out of F.I.R. No. 584 of 2023, under Sections 302, 504 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Kotwali Bikapur, District Ayodhya/Faizabad, is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let appellant Bablu Nishad , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶16

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will 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

¶17

in accordance with law.

¶18

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

¶19

(iii) 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 applicant 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.

¶20

(iv) 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. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶21

Trial court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶22

Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Gaurav/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bablu Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu Nishad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Pradeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Lalita Devi vs Dir. of Enforcement Lko.

Sarvan and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home. Lko and Another

Pawan Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Sunil Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Anwar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.