Allahabad High Court
Zaheer Ahmad Khan @ Zakeer vs The State Of U.P. & Anr. on 8 July, 2019
Bench: Pritinker Diwaker
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 859 of 2019
Appellant :- Zaheer Ahmad Khan @ Zakeer
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. & Anr.
Counsel for Appellant :- Nadeem Murtaza,Praveen Kumar Yadav,Shivanshu Goswami
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,J.
Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr R N Singh, learned counsel for the State. None for respondent no.2 though served.
Appeal is formally admitted for hearing.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the impugned order dated 26.4.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge II/Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act, Hardoi in bail application No.110 of 2019, whereby the Special Court has rejected the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr PC, arising out of Crime No.469 of 2014 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 458, 380, 307, 336, 323, 504, 506, 427, 120-B of IPC and Section 3 (2) (5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Bilgram, District Hardoi.
As per prosecution case, on 17.7.2014, the appellant along with 46 named accused persons and 1500 other villagers have gained entry in the premises in question, and have damaged certain houses and old constructions situate at Valmiki locality. It is also alleged that the accused persons have also caused some injuries to five victims.
Counsel for the appellant submits that:
(i) similarly placed 20 co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court and the lead case is Criminal Appeal No.1619 of 2018;
(ii) after passing of the main order in the lead case (Criminal Appeal No.1619 of 2018) , the same has been followed in other cases also;
(iii) the role assigned to the appellant is no more different from those who have already been granted bail by this Court;
(iv) on the ground of parity, the appellant is entitled for bail;
(v) the appellant is in jail since 8.4.2019 and till date even charge has not been framed and considering the nature of incident and number of witnesses, there is every possibility that the trial may take sometime for its final disposal; and
(vi) considering the nature of incident and the material collected by the prosecution, there is every possibility of acquittal of the appellant.
On the other hand, opposing the submission advance by learned counsel for the appellant, it has been argued by learned State Counsel that the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the bail application filed by the appellant. He however, does not dispute that the case of the appellant is identical to those co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail by this Court.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the nature of allegations levelled against the appellant and the fact that similarly co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court, without further commenting on merit, I am inclined to release the appellant on bail. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
Let appellant Zaheer Ahmad Khan @ Zakeer be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) and two 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 shall file an undertaking to the effect that he/she 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.
(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his/her counsel. In case of his/her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him/her under section 229-a I.P.C.
(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his/her presence proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him/her, in accordance with law, under section 174-a I.P.C.
(iv) 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/her in accordance with law.
(v) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial within a period of one year after the release of the appellant.
However, it is made clear that any willful violation of above conditions by the appellant shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 8.7.2019
RKK/-
