Allahabad High Court
Shamsher Alam vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 December, 2024
Author: Ajay Bhanot
Bench: Ajay Bhanot
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:191239 Court No. - 6 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10049 of 2024 Appellant :- Shamsher Alam Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Brij Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Matter is taken up in the revised call.
Shri Shrawan Kumar Dubey, learned AGA on the basis of instructions submits that the notices upon the respondents have been served in light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Ajeet Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. & Another reported at 2021 (1) ADJ 559.
This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Kushinagar at Padrauna in bail application bearing No.1718 of 2024 (Shamsher Alam v. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 176 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 404, 34 I.P.C., and Section 3 (2) (V) of SC/ST Act and Section 3/25 Arms Act, Police Station-Taryasujan, District-Kushinagar. The applicant-appellant is in jail since 05.06.2024.
The bail application of the appellant was rejected by the learned trial court on 18.09.2024.
The following arguments made by Shri Brij Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava, learned counsel behalf of the appellant, which could not be satisfactorily refuted by Shri Shravan Kumar Dubey, learned AGA from the record, entitle the applicant/appellant for grant of bail:
1. Briefly put the prosecution case set out in the F.I.R. is that the deceased had gone to a temple. He was shot dead by the accused persons.
2. Six persons have been named in the FIR.
3. The F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the deceased at a time proximate to the incident.
4. The appellant was not named in the F.I.R. The nominated accused are powerful persons who deflected the course of the investigation. All the aforesaid persons were exonerated under political influence.
5. The appellant has been subsequently scapegoated by the police authorities only to save the aforesaid persons.
6. One country made pistol, live cartridges and a mobile phone were planted on the appellant to burnish the credentials of the police authorities.
7. There is no independent witness to the recovery.
8. The prosecution case does not attribute the role of shooting to the appellant.
9. The appellant does not have any role to commit the murder.
10. The appellant does not have any link with the vehicle in which the principal offenders were travelling.
11. The appellant claims congruency in role and seeks parity in relief granted to the co-accused person who has been enlarged on bail by this Court by order dated 11.09.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31782 of 2024.
12. Learned AGA contends that the appellant has a criminal history of some more cases. Rejoining this issue, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is a poor person. He is in jail and does not have an effective pairokar. Hence, details of the cases could not be obtained and stated in the bail application. However, relying on the records available with the learned AGA and the instructions received from his client, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was falsely nominated in the said cases. The said cases do not depict any criminal trait and have no bearing on the instant bail application.
In the light of the preceding discussion, facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the nature of the offence and evidence the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set aside and the appeal is to be allowed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set aside.
Let the appellant- Shamsher Alam be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number, on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below. The following conditions be imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness during the trial.
(ii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
The learned trial court is directed to fix the sureties after due application of mind in light of the judgement rendered by this Court in Arvind Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. (Application U/S 482 No.2613 of 2023).
The learned trial court shall ensure that the right of bail of the appellant granted by this Court is not frustrated by arbitrary demands of sureties or onerous conditions which are unrelated to the socioeconomic status of the appellant.
Order Date :- 5.12.2024 Jaswant