High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Gyanendra Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 31.08.2022 passed in Bail Application No.2826 of 2022, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Sultanpur in Case Crime No.232 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B, 307, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Section 7 of CLA Act and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baldirai, District- Sultanpur.

3. It is evident from the record that notice has already been served upon private respondent, however, none appears on his behalf. Despite service of notice as none appears on behalf of private respondent therefore, the matter is being proceeded for final disposal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that earlier the appellant was implicated in criminal cases due to political rivalry and in all cases, he is on bail and in the present case, he has been falsely implicated along with five persons, namely, Shiv Bhushan Pandey, Amarjeet Yadav, Ramjeet Yadav, Ram Singh, Rakesh Kumar Yadav and two unknown persons with the general allegation of open fire. He further submitted that the injured witnesses, namely, Kariya Dubey and Jagga have categorically stated that all the named and known persons opened fire at them and in the said firing, Suresh Kumar died and they (Kariya Dubey and Jagga) received injuries. He further submitted that after investigation, name of Shiv Bhushan and Ramjeet Yadav was deleted by the Investigating OfÏcer with the observation that they were falsely implicated in the F.I.R. and the charge sheet was filed against 15 persons including the appellant. He further submitted that the appellant is in jail since 21.09.2019 and till today, only three witnesses have been examined and injured Kariya Dubey has not supported the prosecution version and the injured Jagga is not cooperating in the trial despite the issuance of summons against him. He further submitted that as the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not reliable as in the statement of Kariya Dubey and Jagga, they made allegations against all the accused persons but name of two persons were dropped by the Investigating OfÏcer.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that co- accused, namely, Amarjeet Yadav, Balram Nishad and Anil Kumar Yadav having identical role has already been granted bail on 12.01.2024; 29.07.2020 and 29.07.2020 by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.286 of 2021; 32 of 2020 and 35 of 2020. He further submitted that learned trial court failed to consider the prosecution story as well as defense of appellant, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant may be enlarged on bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of appellant and submitted that in the statement of injured Jagga recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he categorically stated that he received injury due to firing done by the appellant but he does not dispute this fact that initially, five named and two unknown person were named in the F.I.R. and after investigation, name of two persons were dropped by the Investigating OfÏcer and charge sheet was submitted against 15 persons including the appellant. He also conceded the fact that the co-accused Wahid Ansari is already enlarged on bail.

7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, F.I.R., statement of injured as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that as the injured witnesses have not supported the prosecution version and the injured Jagga is not appearing before the trial court, as the co- accused has already been granted bail and the appellant is in jail since 21.09.2019, in such circumstances, this Court is of the view that learned trial court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

8. Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order dated impugned order dated 31.08.2022 passed in Bail Application No.2826 of 2022, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Sultanpur in Case Crime No.232 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B, 307, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Section 7 of CLA Act and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baldirai, District- Sultanpur, is hereby set aside.

9. Let the appellant- Imran Ansari @ Ahmad, involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates 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. (ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229- A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for 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 sufÏcient 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.

10. Trial court is directed to conclude trial, expeditiously, if possible, within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

11. OfÏce is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, forthwith. Order Date :- 6.1.2025. Rks. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Gyanendra Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 31.08.2022 passed in Bail Application No.2826 of 2022, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Sultanpur in Case Crime No.232 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B, 307, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Section 7 of CLA Act and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baldirai, District- Sultanpur.

3. It is evident from the record that notice has already been served upon private respondent, however, none appears on his behalf. Despite service of notice as none appears on behalf of private respondent therefore, the matter is being proceeded for final disposal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that earlier the appellant was implicated in criminal cases due to political rivalry and in all cases, he is on bail and in the present case, he has been falsely implicated along with five persons, namely, Shiv Bhushan Pandey, Amarjeet Yadav, Ramjeet Yadav, Ram Singh, Rakesh Kumar Yadav and two unknown persons with the general allegation of open fire. He further submitted that the injured witnesses, namely, Kariya Dubey and Jagga have categorically stated that all the named and known persons opened fire at them and in the said firing, Suresh Kumar died and they (Kariya Dubey and Jagga) received injuries. He further submitted that after investigation, name of Shiv Bhushan and Ramjeet Yadav was deleted by the Investigating OfÏcer with the observation that they were falsely implicated in the F.I.R. and the charge sheet was filed against 15 persons including the appellant. He further submitted that the appellant is in jail since 21.09.2019 and till today, only three witnesses have been examined and injured Kariya Dubey has not supported the prosecution version and the injured Jagga is not cooperating in the trial despite the issuance of summons against him. He further submitted that as the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not reliable as in the statement of Kariya Dubey and Jagga, they made allegations against all the accused persons but name of two persons were dropped by the Investigating OfÏcer.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that co- accused, namely, Amarjeet Yadav, Balram Nishad and Anil Kumar Yadav having identical role has already been granted bail on 12.01.2024; 29.07.2020 and 29.07.2020 by this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.286 of 2021; 32 of 2020 and 35 of 2020. He further submitted that learned trial court failed to consider the prosecution story as well as defense of appellant, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant may be enlarged on bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of appellant and submitted that in the statement of injured Jagga recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he categorically stated that he received injury due to firing done by the appellant but he does not dispute this fact that initially, five named and two unknown person were named in the F.I.R. and after investigation, name of two persons were dropped by the Investigating OfÏcer and charge sheet was submitted against 15 persons including the appellant. He also conceded the fact that the co-accused Wahid Ansari is already enlarged on bail.

7. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of appeal, F.I.R., statement of injured as well as other relevant documents; it is evident that as the injured witnesses have not supported the prosecution version and the injured Jagga is not appearing before the trial court, as the co- accused has already been granted bail and the appellant is in jail since 21.09.2019, in such circumstances, this Court is of the view that learned trial court failed to consider the aforesaid aspects, hence, the aforesaid impugned order is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

8. Resultantly, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, hence, the present appeal has substance, and it is accordingly allowed, and the impugned order dated impugned order dated 31.08.2022 passed in Bail Application No.2826 of 2022, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Sultanpur in Case Crime No.232 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B, 307, 504, 506, 34 I.P.C., Section 7 of CLA Act and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baldirai, District- Sultanpur, is hereby set aside.

9. Let the appellant- Imran Ansari @ Ahmad, involved in the aforementioned crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, with the following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he will not seek any adjournment on the dates 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. (ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229- A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant 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 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for 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 sufÏcient 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.

10. Trial court is directed to conclude trial, expeditiously, if possible, within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

11. OfÏce is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, forthwith. Order Date :- 6.1.2025. Rks. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench