Kasim Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:14925

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3779 of 2024

Appellant :- Kasim Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Pranav Pandey,Mohd. Asif Akram Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Gyan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the private respondent, learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondents and perused the record.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed for setting aside the impugned judgement and order dated 11.11.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Bahraich in Bail Application No. 2895/12A/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 0493/2024 under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1) of BNS and Section 3(1)(dha), 3(2) va, 3(2) v, 3(1) E, & 3(1) H of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nanpara, District- Bahraich.

¶8

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to annoyance and false recovery of the hairs shown by the investigating officer. He further submits that after considering the entire evidence collected by the investigating officer, no offence under Section 109(1) (attempt to murder) of BNS is made out but the charge sheet has already been filed in the aforesaid offence. He further submits that except the offence under Section 109(1) of BNS, all the offences are punishable less than seven years. He also submits that the charge sheet has already been filed, trial is not going on and appellant does not have any criminal antecedents, all these facts have not been considered by the Trial Court and rejected the bail application of the appellant. He also submits that in the present case, there is no possibility to conclude the trial in near future, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶9

Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer of appellant and submitted that sufficient evidences were found against the appellant. They further submit that the head of the victim was shaved by the appellant and other accused persons and black paint was posted on his face and compel to roam in the village.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the

¶11

parties, going through the contents of impugned order as well as FIR and other relevant material, medicolegal report of the victim, except the offence under Section 109(1) of BNS, all the offences are punishable less than seven years, this Court is of the view that learned trial court is failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed , and the impugned order dated 11.11.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Bahraich in Bail Application No. 2895/12A/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 0493/2024 under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1) of BNS and Section 3(1)(dha), 3(2) va, 3(2) v, 3(1) E, & 3(1) H of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Nanpara, District- Bahraich is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellant- Kasim Khan involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶14

(1) 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 in accordance with law.

¶15

(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 229A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

(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.

¶17

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed.

¶18

In case of breach of any of the conditions, it shall be ground for cancellation of bail.

¶19

The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties and it is also open for

¶20

the complainant of the present case to move appropriate application before the Superintendent of Police concerned for protection, if think fit.

¶21

Order Date :- 11.3.2025 AKK

¶22

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

Kasim Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasim Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. 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

Smt. Arti Thru. Her Husband Sri Shailesh Kumar @ Shailendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Superintendent of Police Pratapgarh and 3 Others

Smt. Sita Yadav Vs Addl. Principal JUDGE-4, Family Court, Distt. Lucknow and Another

Master Rishab Krishna Thru. His Natural Guardian (Father) Krishnapal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Lavlesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sandeep Rajkumar Vs Shalini Rajkumar

Najim Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another