Allahabad High Court
Ujair Ahmad vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 July, 2021
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2765 of 2021
Appellant :- Ujair Ahmad
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ramesh Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant Ujair Ahmad with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 26.04.2021, passed by Incharge Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Kaushambi, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 54 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 466 of 2020, under Sections 364, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(5), 3(1)(Gha) SC/ST Act, Police Station Pashchim Sharira, District Kaushambi.
Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the rejection order has been challenged on the ground that after investigation, charge sheet has already been filed and the conclusion recorded by the Investigating Officer that the appellant was not having the knowledge that the deceased will be murdered by the other accused persons. Moreover, the first information report has been lodged after a delay of four days, whereas the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is only 7 Kms. It has also been submitted that the appeal of the co-accused namely Kallu Kanjada @ Naushad Ahmad, who was assigned the similar role, has already been allowed by this Court, vide order dated 15.06.2021, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2053 of 2021. The said order has been produced by the learned counsel for the appellant in the Court, which is also taken on record. It has been submitted that the accused-appellant is not named in the first information report and his name come in light in the statements of co-accused Ranjeet Dhobi and Mohd. Yaseen. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused-appellant has no criminal history and the court below has illegally rejected the bail application of the appellant. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the accused-appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 have vehemently opposed the the prayer but they have not disputed the fact that the appeal of co-accused namely Kallu Kanjada @ Naushad Ahmad, who was assigned the similar role, has already been allowed by this Court.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also the fact that the name of the accused-appellant did not find mention in the first information report and the first information report has been lodged after a delay of four days and the appeal of the co-accused Kallu Kanjada @ Naushad Ahmad, who has assigned the similar role has already been allowed, I find that the learned court below has erred in rejected the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.04.2021, passed by Incharge Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Kaushambi, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 54 of 2021 is hereby set aside.
Let the appellant namely Ujair Ahmad involved in Case Crime No. 466 of 2020, under Sections 364, 34 I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(5), 3(1)(Gha) SC/ST Act, Police Station Pashchim Sharira, District Kaushambi is granted bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The appellant will co-operate with the trial and remain present personally on each and every date fixed for framing of charge, recording of evidence as well as recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or through counsel on other dates and in case of absence without sufficient cause, it will be deemed that appellant is abusing the liberty of bail enabling the court concerned to take necessary action in accordance with the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. or Sections 174A and 229A I.P.C.
(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the prosecution evidence and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.
(iii) The appellant will not indulge in any unlawful activities.
The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the appellant to prison.
Order Date :- 14.7.2021
sailesh
