Marook Ahmad @ Raja Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38590

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3897 of 2024

Appellant :- Marook Ahmad @ Raja Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Dhirendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

From the Office report dated 07.01.2025 and Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of the State, it is apparent that service of notice upon private opposite party No. 2 is sufficient. However, today when the case called out, no one appeared on behalf of private opposite party No. 2 to oppose the present appeal.

¶7

In the aforesaid background of the case, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

¶8

By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 26.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli in second Bail Application No. 3117 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 254 of 2024 under Sections 103(1) BNS 2023 and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Jayas, District-Raebareli and also prayed for releasing on bail.

¶9

It is stated that if the case of prosecution, with regard to relationship between the deceased and applicant, is taken on its face value, then in that eventuality, it can be inferred that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶10

Further stated that it can also be presumed in view of story set up by the prosecution, according to which, the deceased, married lady, was having affair with the applicant, then it is a case of honour killing and the applicant has been implicated in the instant case.

¶11

It is further stated that the instant case is the case of circumstantial evidence and there is no witness of last seen and further there is no evidence available with the prosecution to connect the applicant with the crime indicated in the FIR except

¶12

the Call Detail Report (C.D.R.), according to which, in the night of 15.09.2024 the applicant and the deceased were in touch on call between 09:53 PM and 10:38 PM.

¶13

It is also stated that the deceased, according to the prosecution case, left her house at about 04:00 AM of 16.09.2024 for ease herself and as she could not return within reasonable time, the informant tried to search the deceased, who was found alive but she did not indicate the name of the applicant in the alleged crime. This also creates doubt upon the story of the prosecution against the applicant.

¶14

Further submission is that according to the prosecution case, the deceased was assaulted with brick and on pointing out of applicant, the said brick was recovered, however, blood stains were not found on the recovered brick and therefore also story of the prosecution against the applicant is doubtful.

¶15

Further submission is that the applicant was apprehended in Police encounter, as per case of the prosecution, and from his possession a country made pistol having 315 bore and one live cartridge was recovered and in relation to the same, the case is pending consideration.

¶16

Further stated that the applicant is in jail since 22.09.2024 having criminal history of total three cases including the present case which has been explained in Para 14 of the rejoinder affidavit. This aspect of the case has not been refuted by the learned AGA.

¶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. vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

¶19

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., post-mortem report 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 as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view

¶21

that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶22

The order dated 26.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli in second Bail Application No. 3117 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 254 of 2024 under Sections 103(1) BNS and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Jayas, District-Raebareli, is hereby set aside.

¶23

Let appellant - Marook Ahmad @ Raja , 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 :-

¶24

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

¶25

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶26

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶27

(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.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(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.

¶31

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.

¶32

Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Vinay/-

¶33

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

Marook Ahmad @ Raja v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marook Ahmad @ Raja 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

Ms. Riya Patwa Thru. Her Next Friend Ashish Yagyasaini Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 4 Others

Pramila Devi @ Urmila Devi Thru. Her Husband Maneesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Mohni Thru. Her Husband Ankit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Siyaram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Deepak Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and Another

Xyz/ Informant of the Case Crime No. 10/2023 Thru. I.O./S.H.O. P.S. Dhammaur, Distt. Sultanpur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy Home Lko. and Another