High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 76 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4528 of 2021 Appellant :- Sufiyan @ Laddan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Mashhood Abbas Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Faheem Ahmad Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Legal Reasoning
The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only. Taking into account the role attributed to the applicant and applicant is not named in the F.I.R. his name has been mentioned on the next day without attributing any role to him under commission of offence and also without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. Order impugned dated 20.09.2021 is hereby quashed. Let the appellant Sufiyan @ Laddan, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) THE APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL. (ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. (iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC. (iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC. (v) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. Impugned order dated 20.09.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Azamgarh in Bail Application No. 2708 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime no. 263 of 2019, under Sections 147, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C read with section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Saraimeer, District Azamgarh, is hereby set aside. Order Date :- 9.2.2022 Vikram Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH Date: 2022.02.11 18:08:35 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record. This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the impugned order dated 20.09.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Azamgarh in Bail Application No. 2708 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime no. 263 of 2019, under Sections 147, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C read with section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S. Saraimeer, District Azamgarh. This is sorry state of affairs and the registry is not ready to mend his ways. Sri, Faheem Ahmad, learned counsel for the complainant states that after the service of counter affidavit on counsel for the appellant he has filed a copy of counter affidavit in the registry way back on 11.01.2022. In response to the counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit too have been filed in registry on 10.01.2022, unfortunately both the affidavits are not on record, causing a serious impediment and hindrance in deciding this appeal. On earlier occasion too I have passed a judicial order directing the registry to restore back the pleadings within a time specified but it seems that my judicial direction simply being ignored by the concerned Officials/Sections Officers. Now coming to the merit of the case:- Contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that initially F.I.R. was registered by one Abid against 4 named and 2 unknown persons. Applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The informant of the case is said to have been eye witness of the incident and in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement has attributed the role of firing of fire arm to the applicant. Though, in this transaction 5 persons have been injured. No active role has been attributed to the applicant. The role of firing was attributed to all the named accused persons and two persons are said to have been sustained the pellets injuries. Raj Kumar carrying and sustained pellets injuries on the non vital part of the body. Interestingly initially the F.I.R. was registered under section 147, 307 and 504 IPC but during the course of investigation the police has added sections 506 IPC and section 3(2)5 of S.C./S.T. Act. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant is that date and time of incident is dead hours of night at 1:00 a.m. and there is a allegation that applicant has used a caste related allegation against the applicant in a derogatory way. Though, it is a public place but not in the public audience because the incident is said to have been taken place at about 1:00 a.m. in the night. It is contended by learned counsel is that the name of the applicant has been added on the very next day and no role has been attributed to him. The appellant is languishing in jail since 02.08.2021. Per contra Sri, Faheem Ahmad, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail application by making mention that appellant have a long criminal history of 8 cases and it is likelihood he would misuse the liberty of bail. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of the Court paragraph 12 of the supplementary affidavit explaining the criminal antecedents most of the cases are of insignificant nature except the present one.