Alauddin vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10693

Court No. - 82

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 9954 of 2024

Appellant :- Alauddin Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Narayan Singh(Kushwaha) Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶7

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Alauddin with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 12.9.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Etah and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 71 of 2024 under Sections 354, 504, 506, 420 IPC, Sections 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act and 3/5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2021, P.S. Bagwala, District Etah.

¶8

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

¶9

The major victim of this case was often teased by the present appellant, who used to create pressure upon her for conversion and to marry with him. F.I.R. was lodged and now charge sheet has been submitted.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Since both the parties are the resident of same village, there was no occasion for the appellant to make a forged aadhar card by changing his name and religion. It is a case of consensual relationship but however in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC the victim of this case has not alleged the present appellant to have any physical relation with her. Criminal history of solitary case has been sufficiently explained. No offence, as alleged, has been committed by the present appellant. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to

¶11

constitute offence under SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. The appellant is in jail since 14.4.2024. The Court concerned 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. 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.

¶12

On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the fact that no conversion has taken place in this matter, incarceration period of the appellant, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶15

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

¶16

Let the aforesaid appellant involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

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

¶20

(iv). The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of

¶21

which he is suspected.

¶22

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

¶23

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶24

Order Date :- 22.1.2025 safi

¶25

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Alauddin v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alauddin 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

Komal Rajput vs State of U.P. and Another

Nidhi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shashi Kala vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Irsad vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahendra Singh vs State of U.P.

Durga Prasad vs State of U.P.