Shafiq Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34329

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 51 of 2025

Appellant :- Shafiq Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vinay Kumar Verma,Neetesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for opposite party No.1-State.

¶8

Earlier notices had been issued to opposite party No.2 and as per office report dated 30th January, 2025, notice has been served personally upon the opposite party No.2 but has not put in appearance.

¶9

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T.Act,Barabanki in Bail Application No.3867/2024 in Case Crime No420/2024, under Sections 75(2), 309(4), 352, 351(2), 317(2) of BNS & 3(1)r,3(1)s,3(1)w,3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station-Baddupur, District-Barabanki.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the case, whereas he is innocent. He further submits that the alleged incident is of 13.11.2024 at 2:30 p.m. whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged at 23:02 in the night. He further submits that it is not believable that after such an incident, the complainant would first go to leave his wife to the College where she is studying and after coming back, lodge the F.I.R.,therefore, a false F.I.R. has been lodged on account of some incident on road. He further submits that the casteist remarks are not mentioned in the F.I.R. and the same has been developed in the statements under Section 180 and 183 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita. The complainant has also not stated anything about the casteist remarks. He further submits that the applicant has been enlarged on bail in two cases against him, copies of which have been filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit. He further submits that the appellant is in jail since 14.11.2024 and in case he is released on bail he will not misuse the liberty granted by this Court and

¶11

assist the trial court in early disposal of trial.

¶12

Learned AGA though opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant,however, he could not contradict the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the appellant.

¶13

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records,it is apparent that the alleged incident is of 2:30 p.m., whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged at 23:02 in the night and as per own averment of the complainant in the F.I.R.,after the incident, he first went to Lucknow to leave his wife in the College where she is studying and after returning, lodged the F.I.R.. It is also apparent that there are no casteist remarks in the F.I.R. and the same has been developed in the statements under Section 180 and 183 Cr.P.C. respectively. The appellant has been enlarged on bail in two cases against him and the court below has passed the impugned order without considering the same, which is liable to be set aside and the case for bail of the appellant is made out.

¶14

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order 10.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T.Act,Barabanki is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let the appellant- Shafiq involved in the aforementioned case 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, subject to following conditions:-

¶16

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

¶17

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶18

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is issued and the applicants fail 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.

¶19

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the

¶20

trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶21

(v) If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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.

¶22

Order Date :- 3.6.2025 prabhat

¶23

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

Shafiq v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shafiq v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home 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

Anoop Rasbihari Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ashish Kumar Dixit @ Ashish Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Shivam Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and Another

Shafiq vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Naseem Ahmad Khan vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Sharad Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Forest) Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others