High Court · 2025

Appellant :- Altaf Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Atul Srivastava,Krishna Mohan Tripathi,Mohd. Farooq,Shadab Ali Counsel for Respondent :- Atharva Dixit,G.A.,Ram Bihari Mishra Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Altaf with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 8.6.2020 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Allahabad and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.1541 of 2017 under Sections 302, 120-B IPC and 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad.

2. Heard Sri Shadab Ali, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Manish Tiwary, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the informant / opposite party no.2 and perused the entire record.

3. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 28.12.2017 at about 2:30 in the afternoon, when the informant Seema Devi was going towards Bihari Colony with her husband Ravi Pasi of foot, Salman and Altaf, the named accused persons stopped her husband in front of the house of Ahmed and indiscriminate firing was made by them upon the husband of the informant. He was immediately rushed to the hospital and on the way he told the name of the assailants to his wife. The husband of the informant had also told her two days back that Zulfikar @ Tota, who is lodged in jail, is hatching conspiracy to eliminate him through his brothers. Informant's husband took his last breath while going to the hospital. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation now the charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter.

4. 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. The prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that there is no eyewitness of the alleged occurrence and in the F.I.R., wrong fact has been mentioned that at the time of incident, the informant was accompanying her husband and is, as such, an eyewitness of the occurrence. It is also submitted that the informant in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has not assigned the role of firing to the present appellant. It is also submitted that there is no evidence on record that in order to make a criminal conspiracy of murder of the deceased, the appellant ever visited to Central Jail, Naini to meet the co-accused Zulfikar @ Tota. It is also submitted that the murder weapon has not been retrieved from the possession or on the pointing out of the appellant and the whole story of alleged recovery of murder weapon is a false and concocted story of the prosecution. It is also submitted that the alleged cctv footage of Central Jail, Naini also does not help the prosecution. Even the CDR in connection with the present appellant also does not help the prosecution. It is also submitted that the present appellant is languishing in jail for a period of about 7 years 6 months having no criminal history to his credit. The trial is still going on. It is further submitted that co-accused Mohd. Masroor, Mohd. Amir @ Bhutto, Aftab, Dilshad and Mohd. Rashid have already been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the incarceration period of the appellant, he is entitled for bail by way of allowing the present appeal.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant / opposite party no.2 opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that the informant Seema Devi the wife of the deceased, is the eyewitness of the occurrence who was present with her husband at the place of occurrence when the incident took place. It is also submitted that the fire upon the deceased was made by co- accused Salman and by the present accused appellant Altaf as well and the same statement has been given by the eyewitnesses Ismail and Km. Preeti. It is also submitted that the 315 bore desi pistol used in the commission of crime has been retrieved by the police from the possession of the accused appellant. It is also submitted that there is no possibility of false implication of the accused appellant. The CDR collected by the I.O. during investigation also reveals the participation of the present appellant in the alleged crime of murder of the husband of the informant.

6. 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.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that specific role to open fire upon the deceased has been alleged against the present appellant alongwith the co-accused Salman and it was a day light murder, the nature and gravity of the offence, evidence, complicity of accused, the Court is of the view that no ground is made out to allow the present appeal and to grant bail to the appellant.

8. The bail granted to the aforesaid co-accused persons by the coordinate Benches of this Court does not provide any help to the appellant considering the role played by both of them in the commission of the alleged crime.

9. So far as the plea of long incarceration period is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court promulgated in Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2024) 5 SCC 403 that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offence, as one involved in the instant case, cannot be used as a ground to grant bail. Hence, the aforesaid argument made on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted.

10. Undoubtedly, delay in trial may be considered as a ground for grant of bail but it is not the sole ground for bail and the Court has always to keep in mind the overall circumstances of the given case since this matter pertains to day light murder of the deceased, in my view, no relaxation should be given to the appellant on the ground of delayed trial or long pendency of the sessions trial. Hence, there is no reason to grant indulgence of bail to the appellant pending trial at this stage.

11. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 4.7.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Appellant :- Altaf Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Atul Srivastava,Krishna Mohan Tripathi,Mohd. Farooq,Shadab Ali Counsel for Respondent :- Atharva Dixit,G.A.,Ram Bihari Mishra Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Altaf with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 8.6.2020 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Allahabad and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.1541 of 2017 under Sections 302, 120-B IPC and 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Dhoomanganj, District Allahabad.

2. Heard Sri Shadab Ali, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Manish Tiwary, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the informant / opposite party no.2 and perused the entire record.

3. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 28.12.2017 at about 2:30 in the afternoon, when the informant Seema Devi was going towards Bihari Colony with her husband Ravi Pasi of foot, Salman and Altaf, the named accused persons stopped her husband in front of the house of Ahmed and indiscriminate firing was made by them upon the husband of the informant. He was immediately rushed to the hospital and on the way he told the name of the assailants to his wife. The husband of the informant had also told her two days back that Zulfikar @ Tota, who is lodged in jail, is hatching conspiracy to eliminate him through his brothers. Informant's husband took his last breath while going to the hospital. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation now the charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter.

4. 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. The prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that there is no eyewitness of the alleged occurrence and in the F.I.R., wrong fact has been mentioned that at the time of incident, the informant was accompanying her husband and is, as such, an eyewitness of the occurrence. It is also submitted that the informant in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. has not assigned the role of firing to the present appellant. It is also submitted that there is no evidence on record that in order to make a criminal conspiracy of murder of the deceased, the appellant ever visited to Central Jail, Naini to meet the co-accused Zulfikar @ Tota. It is also submitted that the murder weapon has not been retrieved from the possession or on the pointing out of the appellant and the whole story of alleged recovery of murder weapon is a false and concocted story of the prosecution. It is also submitted that the alleged cctv footage of Central Jail, Naini also does not help the prosecution. Even the CDR in connection with the present appellant also does not help the prosecution. It is also submitted that the present appellant is languishing in jail for a period of about 7 years 6 months having no criminal history to his credit. The trial is still going on. It is further submitted that co-accused Mohd. Masroor, Mohd. Amir @ Bhutto, Aftab, Dilshad and Mohd. Rashid have already been granted bail by coordinate Benches of this Court. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly considering the incarceration period of the appellant, he is entitled for bail by way of allowing the present appeal.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant / opposite party no.2 opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that the informant Seema Devi the wife of the deceased, is the eyewitness of the occurrence who was present with her husband at the place of occurrence when the incident took place. It is also submitted that the fire upon the deceased was made by co- accused Salman and by the present accused appellant Altaf as well and the same statement has been given by the eyewitnesses Ismail and Km. Preeti. It is also submitted that the 315 bore desi pistol used in the commission of crime has been retrieved by the police from the possession of the accused appellant. It is also submitted that there is no possibility of false implication of the accused appellant. The CDR collected by the I.O. during investigation also reveals the participation of the present appellant in the alleged crime of murder of the husband of the informant.

6. 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.

7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that specific role to open fire upon the deceased has been alleged against the present appellant alongwith the co-accused Salman and it was a day light murder, the nature and gravity of the offence, evidence, complicity of accused, the Court is of the view that no ground is made out to allow the present appeal and to grant bail to the appellant.

8. The bail granted to the aforesaid co-accused persons by the coordinate Benches of this Court does not provide any help to the appellant considering the role played by both of them in the commission of the alleged crime.

9. So far as the plea of long incarceration period is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court promulgated in Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, (2024) 5 SCC 403 that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offence, as one involved in the instant case, cannot be used as a ground to grant bail. Hence, the aforesaid argument made on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted.

10. Undoubtedly, delay in trial may be considered as a ground for grant of bail but it is not the sole ground for bail and the Court has always to keep in mind the overall circumstances of the given case since this matter pertains to day light murder of the deceased, in my view, no relaxation should be given to the appellant on the ground of delayed trial or long pendency of the sessions trial. Hence, there is no reason to grant indulgence of bail to the appellant pending trial at this stage.

11. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 4.7.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad