Allahabad High Court
Arif vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 6 June, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34882
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 825 of 2025
Appellant :- Arif
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Saggir,Arun Sinha,Ram Chandra Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned A.G.A. for opposite party No.1-State. As per office report dated 16th April, 2025, notice has been served personally upon opposite party No.2 who has however not put in appearance.
Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act against bail rejection order dated 6th February, 2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, District Ayodhya/Faiozabad rejecting the bail application (Computer Registration) No.155 of 2025 under Sections 108 BNS and Section 3(2)V SC/ST Act, P,.S. Khandasa, District Ayodhya/Faizabad.
As per contents of F.I.R., allegation levelled is that applicant was in a relationship with the daughter of informant and subsequently refused to marry her. It is also alleged that the applicant instigated the daughter of informant to commit suicide.
It is also submitted that applicant has been falsely implicated in the charges levelled against him which would be evident from not only of the perusal of the F.I.R. but also of statement of informant himself and other members of his family whereby no specific date or time has been indicated when the applicant is said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It is therefore submitted that there is no proximity in the instigation to commit suicide and her actually committing suicide. It is submitted that provisions of section 108 BNS read with Section 45 BNS are clearly not applicable in the present case. It is further submitted that applicant does not have any previous criminal history and is under incarceration since 16th January, 2025. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Kamaruddin Dastagir Sanadi versus State of Karnataka through SHO Kakati Police in Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2012.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed bail application with submission that contents of F.I.R. as well as statement of witnesses recorded during investigation clearly corroborate allegations levelled against the applicant.
Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, prima facie, subject to evidence being led in trial, it appears that the aspect of proximity of instigation to commit suicide and it being followed through would be subject matter of evidence during trial. The aspect of applicability of Section 108 BNS read with Section 45 BNS would also require consideration by the trial court. The appellant without previous criminal history is under incarceration since 16th January, 2025.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for parties, without commenting upon merits, it appears that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. In view of the above, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly appeal is allowed and the order dated 6th February, 2025 is set aside.
Let appellant Arif be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) 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.
(iv) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall 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.
(v) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his 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.
(vi) 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.
Order Date :- 6.6.2025
prabhat
