Mohd. Touheed vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And
Case Details
Acts & Sections
HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. Vide order dated 07.08.2025, the notice has been issued to opposite party no. 2 and as per office report dated 17.09.2025, the same has been served upon opposite party no. 2 personally. Today when the case is taken up, neither counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is present nor any counter on his behalf has been filed, therefore, this Court has no option but to proceed in the matter to decide the instant appeal. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, District Unnao in Bail Application No. 1546 of 2025, in Case Crime No. 41 of 2025, under Sections 87, 109, 103(1), 238, 66, 352, 351(2) BNS and Sections 3/25/27 of Arms Act and Sections 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Auras, District Unnao, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He is not named in the FIR. He further submits that the FIR is highly belated and there is no 2 CRLA No. 2409 of 2025 eye witness account. He further submits that name of the appellant came into light during the course of investigation, which is hearsay evidence. He further submits that chain of the circumstantial evidence is broken. He further submits that as per autopsy report, cause of death is not ascertained and there is also an observation that injuries of the deceased may be caused by 'animal bite'. Except the last seen evidence, there is no other substantial evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. He next submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 21.02.2025 and the appellant has a case criminal history which has been explained. He added that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer and contended that the appellant threatened the deceased and thereafter killed her. He further submits that on pointing out of the appellant, the knife has been recovered and the appellant has a case criminal history, therefore, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, including the allegations made in the FIR, it transpires that the appellant is not named in the FIR; the FIR is lodged after ten days of the incident; name of the appellant came in the statement of the informant but he is not the eye witness; the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence; the investigation has been completed in the matter and chargesheet has been filed; the appellant has explained a case criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 21.02.2025 and he has undertaken that in 3 CRLA No. 2409 of 2025 case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial. Without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, District Unnao in Bail Application No. 1546 of 2025, in Case Crime No. 41 of 2025, under Sections 87, 109, 103(1), 238, 66, 352, 351(2) BNS and Sections 3/25/27 of Arms Act and Sections 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Auras, District Unnao, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Mohd. Touheed be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties relating to his family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions- (i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (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. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. 4 CRLA No. 2409 of 2025 In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order. October 27, 2025 kkv/ (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. Vide order dated 07.08.2025, the notice has been issued to opposite party no. 2 and as per office report dated 17.09.2025, the same has been served upon opposite party no. 2 personally. Today when the case is taken up, neither counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is present nor any counter on his behalf has been filed, therefore, this Court has no option but to proceed in the matter to decide the instant appeal. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, District Unnao in Bail Application No. 1546 of 2025, in Case Crime No. 41 of 2025, under Sections 87, 109, 103(1), 238, 66, 352, 351(2) BNS and Sections 3/25/27 of Arms Act and Sections 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Auras, District Unnao, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He is not named in the FIR. He further submits that the FIR is highly belated and there is no 2 CRLA No. 2409 of 2025 eye witness account. He further submits that name of the appellant came into light during the course of investigation, which is hearsay evidence. He further submits that chain of the circumstantial evidence is broken. He further submits that as per autopsy report, cause of death is not ascertained and there is also an observation that injuries of the deceased may be caused by 'animal bite'. Except the last seen evidence, there is no other substantial evidence to connect the appellant with the crime. He next submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 21.02.2025 and the appellant has a case criminal history which has been explained. He added that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer and contended that the appellant threatened the deceased and thereafter killed her. He further submits that on pointing out of the appellant, the knife has been recovered and the appellant has a case criminal history, therefore, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, including the allegations made in the FIR, it transpires that the appellant is not named in the FIR; the FIR is lodged after ten days of the incident; name of the appellant came in the statement of the informant but he is not the eye witness; the case rests upon the circumstantial evidence; the investigation has been completed in the matter and chargesheet has been filed; the appellant has explained a case criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 21.02.2025 and he has undertaken that in 3 CRLA No. 2409 of 2025 case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial. Without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, District Unnao in Bail Application No. 1546 of 2025, in Case Crime No. 41 of 2025, under Sections 87, 109, 103(1), 238, 66, 352, 351(2) BNS and Sections 3/25/27 of Arms Act and Sections 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Auras, District Unnao, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Mohd. Touheed be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties relating to his family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions- (i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (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. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.PC. 4 CRLA No. 2409 of 2025 In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order. October 27, 2025 kkv/ (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench