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

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20636

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 707 of 2025

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

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 15.2.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Faizabad/Ayodhya in Case Crime No. 346 of 2008, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3(1)(x) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Inayat Nagar, District- Ayodhya/Faizabad.

¶8

As per the office report, the notice has been served personally on the respondent no. 2, but none has put in appearance on his behalf, therefore, this matter is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the case. The appellant was enlarged on bail by the concerned court by means of order dated 28.7.2008. Thereafter, he had cooperated in the trial. He had gone to Mumbai to earn for his livelihood, therefore, he could not appear before the trial court and non-bailable warrant was issued against him in the year 2019. In pursuance thereof, he appeared on 14.02.2019 and it was recalled. Thereafter, he cooperated in the trial up to 2022.

¶10

He further submits that the appellant was in Mumbai and he had informed to his counsel conducting the trial. However, inadvertently, he had not moved the exemption application, on account of which non-bailable warrant was issued with notice to the sureties. Thereafter, the proceedings under Section 82/83 CrPC were undertaken. On coming to know about the nonbailable warrant, the appellant appeared before the court concerned. He moved an application for recall of non-bailable warrant on 24.1.2025, but the same was not recalled and he was sent to jail. Since then, he is in jail. Thus, the submission is that since it was informed to his counsel that he is out of station, but it was not properly informed to the court concerned by moving appropriate exemption application by his counsel, therefore, non-bailable warrant was issued against him and further proceedings were undertaken.

¶11

He further submits that out of nine witnesses, four witnesses have already been examined. He also submits that the coaccused Ibrar Ahmad and Mohd. Suhel, against whom also the non-bailable warrants were issued, have been enlarged on bail by means of order dated 24.1.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 4049 of 2024 (Ibrar Ahmad and another vs. State of U.P. and another). He further submits that he is ready to cooperate in the trial which is to be concluded within a period of six months as per the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid order. He further undertakes to remain present on each and every date before the trial court so that the trial of 2008 may be concluded at an early date, except in exceptional circumstances for genuine reason for which application will be moved with proof before the concerned court.

¶12

Learned AGA vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant. However, he does not dispute the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the grounds of the appeal, impugned order as well as other relevant documents, it appears that non bailable warrants were issued against the appellant due to fault of his counsel conducting the trial. Therefore, considering the aforesaid and undertaking of the appellant that he will remain present before the trial court on each and every date, he is entitled to be released on bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶14

Consequently, in view of above facts and circumstances and the undertaking of the appellant and that the trial of 2008 has not concluded till date and and a direction has been issued for expeditious disposal of the trial within six months by a coordinate bench of this Court, the appeal is, accordingly, allowed . The order dated 15.02.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let the appellant- Jameel 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 and the undertaking as above and in case of violation of his undertaking, appropriate proceedings shall be undertaken by the trial court in accordance with law to ensure presence of the appellant.

¶16

Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Shravan

¶17

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jameel 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ankur Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Sushil Kumar Vs Additional District Judge Barabanki and Another

Raghav Ram Verma and Another Vs Surkahe @ Dilip and Ors.

Parshuram Pandey Vs Smt. Rita Srivastava and Ors.

Najima Vs Union of India Thru. General Manager Northern Railway Baroda House New Delhi

M/s A.K. Bajpai, through Shri Arvind Kumar Bajpai vs Union of India, through General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi and Another