Nafish Ahmad @ Kallu and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellants -Nafish Ahmad @ Kallu and Shoeb Mansuri with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 14.6.2024 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun, in Session Trial No. 36 of 2024 (State vs. Nafis Ahmad @ Kallu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 913 of 2023, under Sections 386, 504, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Kotwali Orai, District – Jalaun.

¶10

The informant has alleged in the FIR that she was alone at her home on 19.11.2023. The accused Naseem came to his house at about 4 pm and asked about her husband. When the accused found that the victim was alone in her house, he started talking obscenely with her and also dragged her by pulling her into the room. The victim, however, managed to escape from the custody of the accused Naseem. She has further alleged that after the said occurrence accused Naseem along with other accused, Nafish and Soyeb Ahmad, are threatening her to publish her photographs on social media, if she does not fulfill their demand of paying them Rs. 2 lakhs.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that main role has been assigned to accused Naseem. However said allegations are also false. Certain dispute between Nafish and some other persons relating to a property is pending before civil court. A civil suit bearing no. 105 of 2023 (Nafish

¶12

CRLA No. 9677 of 2024

¶13

2

¶14

Ahmad vs. Balbir Yadav and others) was filed by the appellant Nafish. The victim resides in a rented room of Balbir Yadav. Balbir Yadav is defendant in the said suit. Second defendant Assu Ahmad has also lodged certain FIRs against appellant wherein he alleged that appellant was trying to grab his property. Appellants have no concern with the victim and have been falsely implicated in this case, and no prima facie case is made out against them.

¶15

Learned AGA has opposed the bail and submitted that the informant/victim has clearly alleged that she was threatened by the appellants, who were demanding Rs. 2 lakhs, and they also threatened to publish her photographs on social media.

¶16

I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record. It is not clear from the FIR and the statement of the victim recorded during the investigation regarding the alleged photographs which have been alleged by the victim.

¶17

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants is set-aside.

¶19

Let the appellants Nafish Ahmad @ Kallu and Shoeb Mansuri involved in Session Trial No. 36 of 2024 (State vs. Nafis Ahmad @ Kallu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 913 of 2023, under Sections 386, 504, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Kotwali Orai, District – Jalaun, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶20

(i) The appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶21

(ii) The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶22

(iii) The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶23

(iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of

¶24

CRLA No. 9677 of 2024

¶25

3

¶26

which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶27

(v) The appellants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶28

(vi) The appellants, whenever called by the I.O. for interrogation, will appear before him.

¶29

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted.

¶30

October 7, 2025 Ujjawal

¶31

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶32

Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nafish Ahmad @ Kallu and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nafish Ahmad @ Kallu and Another v. State of U.P. 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