Allahabad High Court
Masood Hussain Alias Laddan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko ... on 4 March, 2025
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13041
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 600 of 2025
Appellant :- Masood Hussain Alias Laddan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Qazi Sabihur Rahman,Razaur Rahman
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
1. It is evident from the record that notice has already been sent to the complainant, but none has put in appearance on his behalf and, therefore, the matter is being decided with the assistance of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in 1st Anticipatory Bail Application No. 784 of 2025 arising out of F.I.R. No. 285 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 447, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Madiyaon, District Lucknow.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, private respondent and his associates were trying to encroach the property of the Gaon Sabha, to which, uncle of the appellant, who was the Village Pradhan, raised objection and stopped them. Thereafter, they started quarreling, as a result of which, one F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 284 of 2016, under Section 354-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. was lodged against the informant of the present case and other persons. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that only with the intention to make pressure on the appellant and other family members, the F.I.R. was lodged. It is further submitted that the appellant was not taken into custody during the course of investigation. It is vehemently submitted that during the course of investigation, statement of independent witness, namely, Imran Khan was recorded, in which, he categorically stated that private respondent and his associates were trying to encroach the Gaon Sabha land, which was being used by the villagers and on the objection having been raised, the quarrel took place. Thereafter, application was given to the police and the issue was resolved. It is next submitted that only general allegations have been levelled by the informant of the present case and no offence of SC/ST Act is made out. It is also submitted that co-accused, Imran, Mana Singh, Naseem and Faheem have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 83 of 2025. It is next submitted that the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet in mechanical manner, but the court below failed to appreciate the evidences in correct perspective and passed the impugned order. Lastly, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. in SLP (Crl.) No. 1249 of 2023, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is also entitled for anticipatory bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant, but does not dispute the fact that cross cases have been lodged and general allegations have been levelled by the informant of the present case. He also does not dispute the fact that co-accused Imran, Mana Singh, Naseem and Faheem have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 83 of 2025.
6. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the appeal, F.I.R., impugned judgment as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the present F.I.R. was lodged after lodging of the F.I.R. from the side of the appellant. It is also evident that general allegations have been levelled for making out the case of SC/ST Act.
In view of above facts and circumstances as also 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.
7. Impugned order dated 04.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in 1st Anticipatory Bail Application No. 784 of 2025 arising out of F.I.R. No. 285 of 2016, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 447, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Madiyaon, District Lucknow, is hereby set aside.
8. Let appellant,Masood Hussain Alias Laddan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional 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 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 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.
Order Date :- 4.3.2025
VKS
