Allowed

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

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2025CRLA/4049/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an order issuing non-bailable warrants in a 2008 SC/ST Act case. The court found the appellants' absence was due to their counsel's fault, set aside the order dated 07.12.2024, allowed the appeal, released the appellants on bail with conditions, and directed the trial to conclude within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appellants Ibrar Ahmad and Mohd. Suhel released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties each, with conditions; trial to conclude within six months.

Ibrar Ahmad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4918

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4049 of 2024

¶4

Appellant :- Ibrar Ahmad And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

1. Heard.

¶7

The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants with a prayer to quash the order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Case Crime No. 346 of 2008 u/s 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Inayat Nagar, District- Ayodhya.

¶8

It is evident from the record that notice has already been served upon private respondent, but no one has put in appearance on his behalf today. Therefore, this matter is being decided with assistance of learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A for the State.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have falsely been implicated in the present case. As the appellants were enlarged on bail on 03.07.2008, they had cooperated in the trial upto 2022, still the trial was not concluded. He further submits that the appellants were being victimized only due to pendency of the trial of the case in question. In the year 2022, due to some ailment of one of the appellants, they could not appeared before the Court concerned, about which, information was given to the appellants' lawyer, but it was not properly reported to the Court concerned by moving application for exemption, as a result, non bailable warrants were issued against them. He next submits that out of nine witnesses, four witnesses have already been examined. He also submits that the the appellants are in jail since 27.11.2024 and they are ready to cooperate in the trial, hence, they may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellants. However, he does not dispute the fact that the trial of the case in question was of the year 2008 and warrants were issued in the year 2022.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that non bailable warrants were issued against the appellants due to fault of their counsel. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to the released on bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶12

Resultantly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as 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 . The order dated 07.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya is hereby set aside.

¶13

Let the appellants- Ibrar Ahmad and Mohd. Suhel involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on their furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶14

(i) The appellants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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 appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

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

¶17

(iv) The appellants 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 appellants 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 them in accordance with law.

¶18

The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case in question, without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either

¶19

of the parties, within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶20

Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court for necessary compliance, forthwith.

¶21

Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Arpan

¶22

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

Ibrar Ahmad and Another 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?

Ibrar Ahmad and Another 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?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Shudhanshu Shekhar vs Dr. Raghu Nath Singh Director Admin. and Development Dierctorate of Animal Husbandry Lko and Anr.

Lalita Devi vs Dir. of Enforcement Lko.

Kalektar Tiwari Alias Sanjay Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another.

Ram Surat and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Ibrar Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Suresh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.