Sonu Alias Mohd. Fardeen vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Sonu Alias Mohd. Fardeen vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No bail granted. The impugned bail-rejection order of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Basti dated 29.7.2024 is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed; the trial Court is further directed to conclude the appellant's trial expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant made out a case for grant of bail and whether the impugned bail-rejection order suffered from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. +1 more

Court's answer

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, evidence and complicity of the accused, the appellant has not made out a case for bail; the impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and is liable to be affirmed, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

Operative disposition: the impugned order rejecting the appellant's bail application is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.

Key takeaways

Ancillary operative directive accompanying the dismissal: the trial court is directed to make all necessary endeavours to conclude the appellant's trial as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order, and Office is to send a copy of the order to the trial Court for compliance.ratio¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 82), Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J., order dated 8.1.2025 — CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 8241 of 2024 filed by appellant Sonu Alias Mohd. Fardeen under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the bail rejection order dated 29.7.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Basti, in case crime no. 264 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (2) 5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti. Counsel Shashi Dhar Shukla urged that the sole ground was the delayed trial, that summons had been issued to witnesses leaving no apprehension of tampering of evidence, that essential ingredients of the SC/ST Act offence were missing, and that the trial Court erred in passing the order; appellant was in jail since 1.8.2023. Learned AGA opposed, submitting the offence was committed with knowledge that the victim belonged to the scheduled caste community. Court noted the new trial-court Presiding Officer took charge on 18.4.2024 and coercive processes issued against informant and victim, and that the coordinate Bench's expedite order dismissing first Cr. Appeal No. 11009 of 2023 (dated 18.12.2023) reached the trial Court only after five months. Holding: appellant has not made out a case for bail; impugned order free from infirmity and illegality; order affirmed and appeal dismissed; trial Court directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within three months of production of certified copy, with Office instructed to transmit the order to the trial Court.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:3366

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8241 of 2024

Appellant :- Sonu Alias Mohd. Fardeen Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shashi Dhar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Sonu Alias Mohd. Fardeen against the bail rejection order dated 29.7.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Basti in case crime no. 264 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (2) 5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti..

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the entire record.

The only ground which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this second criminal appeal is the delayed trial and also the fact that summons have been issued against the witnesses and now there is no apprehension of tampering of evidence on the part of the appellant. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. The trial Court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Appellant is in jail since 1.8.2023. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

On the other hand, learned AGA vehemently opposed the appeal and bail application moved by the accused appellant and it has been submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 29.7.2024. On these grounds prayer for dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the bail application has been made.

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

From the perusal of the report sent by learned Additional Sessions Judge (SC/ST Act), Basti, it appears that the present Presiding Officer took over the charge in the said Court on 18.4.2024 and he is trying to summon the witnesses before the Court and some coercive processes have also been issued against the informant and the victim of this case. It also appears from the perusal of the record that an expedite order has been passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in the first Cr. Appeal No. 11009 of 2023 which was dismissed vide order dated 18.12.2023 but the copy of the same was provided to the trial Court only after five months of the passing of the said order.

Having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed .

However, trial court is directed to make all necessary endevour to conclude the trial of the appellant as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Office is also directed to send a copy of the order passed today to the trial Court for necessary compliance.

Order Date :- 8.1.2025 Fhd

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad