Shaheed Sardar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko.

The instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.01.2025, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial No.486 of 2020 "State Vs. Yunus and others", arising out of Case Crime No.223 of 2019, under Sections 302/34, 325/34, 323/34, 506 and 304/34 IPC, Police Station Patti, District Pratapgarh, whereby the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 304/34, 325/34, 323 and section 506 IPC with maximum punishment of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for charge under Section 304/34 IPC alongwith Rs.20,000/- fine with default stipulation.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that according to the prosecution version incident occurred on 03.11.2019 at 10:00 AM. The accused persons Younus, Habibulla and Shaheed Sardar assaulted Mohd. Kadir, father of the informant badly having been armed with lathi – danda and spade due to which he suffered serious head injuries and he died on 10.11.2020 during treatment. Accused persons also assaulted brother of the informant namely Tabrak who suffered simple injuries in the incident and submitted that in postmortem examination report of the deceased cause of death is shown as scepticemic shock due to ante mortem head injury. Appellant has been assigned lathi, a blunt object in the incident. He has stated his age as 62 years in his statement under section 313 CrPC and at present he is aged around 64 years and is suffering from age related ailments. No specific role has been assigned to the appellant in the offence or of causing

¶15

CRLA No. 496 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

fatal injuries to the deceased. The appellant is held in jail custody since 2 years and 8 months during trial and after conviction. Appeal is not likely to be heard in near future due to huge backlog. He lastly submitted that the case of the appellant is distinguishable from co accused due to old age and weapon assigned to him in the offence.

¶18

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in evidence it has emerged that the appellant assaulted the deceased by lathi on his head but he has not disputed the old age and the period of incarceration of the appellant as contented by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶19

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of allegations, nature of the offence, role assigned to him, period of custody and mainly old age of the appellant and keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the appeal is not likely to be heard in the near future due to heavy backlog and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for grant of bail.

¶20

Accordingly, I hereby direct the trial court/ competent court to enlarge the appellant, Shaheed Sardar, on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing two sureties and a personal bond each to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:-

¶21

i. The amount of 50% fine as awarded by the trial court is stayed and rest of the amount of 50% fine shall be deposited with the trial court by the appellant within two weeks from his actual release from prison, if the same has not been earlier deposited.

¶22

ii. The appellant/ applicant shall cooperate in early disposal of the appeal without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

¶23

iii. The appellant/ applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

¶24

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶25

On acceptance of the bail bonds and the personal bond, the court concerned shall transmit the photocopies thereof to this Court for being kept on the record.

¶26

(Order on Appeal)

¶27

List in due course for hearing.

¶28

CRLA No. 496 of 2025

¶29

3

¶30

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶31

February 10, 2026 mks