Uttam Kumar v. State of U.P.) in First Information Report arising out of Case Crime & Anr.

Appellant :- Uttam Kumar @ Uttam Kumar Saini Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vivek Srivastava,Prashant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Amit Kumar Pal,Vikram Dutt Pandey Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

1. It is evident from the record that notice is already served on the private respondent and names of Sri Amit Kumar Pal and Sri Vikram Dutt Pandey, Advocates are shown as the counsel for the private respondent, but no one has put in appearance today. Therefore, this appeal is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking following reliefs:- "To set aside the impugned order dated 29.08.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No.2700/2024 (Uttam Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another) in First Information Report arising out of Case Crime No. 0335/2024 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 at Police Station- Fatehpur, District- Barabanki."

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that Ajay Kumar (cousin of the appellant) informed the appellant that the land in question was recorded in his name and in case he is willing to sell the same, he is ready to purchase it. As the appellant is suffering from old age ailments, he consented for selling the land and the sale deed was drafted, for which, the appellant went to the office of Registrar for execution. Thereafter, this fact came into the notice of the appellant that the alleged property was of Uttam Kumar s/o Ram Manohar with the similar fact and parentage. In this connection, suit for cancellation of the sale deed was filed by co-accused- Ajay Saini, in which, the appellant filed no objection. At the same time, F.I.R. of the case in question was lodged and then charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer. It is lastly submitted that the appellant is in jail since 14.08.2024 and due to his ill health, he was hospitalized in the hospital of district jail. Till today, not even a single witness has been examined before learned trial Court. As there is no possibility of conclusion of the trial in near future, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for bail.

5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant. However, he does not dispute the fact that the name as well as parentage of the appellant and private respondent/recorded tenure holder are same. On the basis of the documents annexed with the appeal, he further does not dispute that cancellation of the sale deed in question is already pending.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the impugned order, F.I.R. as well as other relevant documents, it is evident from the record that cancellation of the sale deed is already filed by the purchaser and no objection has also been given by the appellant. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to the set aside and the appellant is entitled for bail.

7. Resultantly, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, the appeal has substance and it is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 29.08.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No.2700/2024 is hereby set aside.

8. Let the appellant- Uttam Kumar @ Uttam Kumar Saini 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 sufficient 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 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 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 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.

9. Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial court, forthwith. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Arpan ARPAN ARPAN ARPAN ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench