# Abbu Sahma v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 889
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-10-14
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11656 of 2022
- **Bench:** Shamim Ahmed
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abbu-sahma-v-state-of-u-p-47912
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Bail-Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
304 & 308 -Applicant is the organizer of
nautanki in the village-He arrived at the place
and started unloading explosive substance
and articles of nautanki programme from his
own vehicle-but in rush of doing so-explosion
took place in the vehicle-three persons
sustained injuries- one died-unlikelihood of
early conclusion of trial-and absence of any
convincing material-no role assigned to the
Applicant in the FIR in causing the explosion.

Bail granted. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

Dataram Singh Vs St.of U.P. & anr., reported in
(2018) 3 SCC 22

## Text

11 All. Abbu Sahma Vs. State of U.P.
889
and (iii) recording of statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court
default of this condition is deliberate or without
sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial
court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of
his bail and proceed against him in accordance
with law.

(7) The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded from
the official website of High Court Allahabad or
certified copy issued from the Registry of the
High Court, Allahabad.

(8) The concerned Court/ Authority/
Official shall verify the authenticity of such
computerized copy of the order from the official
website of High Court Allahabad and shall make
a declaration of such verification in writing.

18. It may be observed that in the event of
any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court
below shall be at liberty to proceed for the
cancellation of applicant's bail.

19. It is clarified that the observations, if
any, made in this order are strictly confined to the
disposal of the bail application and must not be
construed to have any reflection on the ultimate
merit of the case.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 889
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHAMIM AHMED, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11656 of
2022

Abbu Sahma ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Farooq Ayoob, Km. Pooja Tiwari
Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Bail-Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
304 & 308 -Applicant is the organizer of
nautanki in the village-He arrived at the place
and started unloading explosive substance
and articles of nautanki programme from his
own vehicle-but in rush of doing so-explosion
took place in the vehicle-three persons
sustained injuries- one died-unlikelihood of
early conclusion of trial-and absence of any
convincing material-no role assigned to the
Applicant in the FIR in causing the explosion.

Bail granted. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

Dataram Singh Vs St.of U.P. & anr., reported in
(2018) 3 SCC 22
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J.)

1. Heard Km. Pooja Tiwari, learned
counsel for the applicant as well as learned
AGA for the State and also perused the
material placed on record.

2. By means of the present bail
application, the applicant- Abbu Sahma
seeks bail in Case Crime No. 163 of 2022,
under Sections 304, 308 IPC and section 5
Explosive Substances Act, Police Station
Dariyabad, District Barabanki, during the
pendency of trial.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that an FIR was lodged on
23.5.2022 by the complainant S.I. Suresh
Chandra Mishra against the applicant and
coaccused Sultan alleging therein that when
on 22.5.2002, In charge out post Dariybad
Sub Inspector Surendra Mishra alongwith
some constables was on foot patrol from
the outpost in the town of Dariyabad, he
received information through mobile phone
that explosion has been done in the vehicle
890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in village Saraishah Alam, in which three
persons have seriously been injured. On
that information, he alongwith his force
team reached on spot and saw that three
persons in vehicle No. UP 41 T6010 Tata
407 were suffering from serious injuries on
account of explosion. Thereafter, they were
brought to CHC Mathuranagar for their
treatment and during the course of
treatment one injured Raju died. It is
further alleged therein that that coaccused
Sultan had his own marriage and after
getting married he came to his village with
his wife. On the occasion of happiness of
marriage, coaccused Sultan wanted to get
nautanki exhibited in his village. He said to
the applicant who was owner of the
nautanki to come to the village and
organize an nautanki party, upon which the
applicant
after
loading
explosive
substances
and
articles
of
nautanki
programme in his own vehicle reached at
village Saraishah Alam at about 19:00
O'clock alongwith Raju, Banwari Lal,
Dhannu and Ayub. Co-accused Sultan
asked the accused applicant to quickly
unload the articles and start the nautanki
programme very soon. Due to this rush in
unloading the articles, an explosion took
place in the vehicle and three persons
sustained injuries who were taken to CHC
where injured Raju was declared died by
doctor and other two injured namely
Banwari Lal and Dhannu was referred to
District Hospital. Due to negligence of
applicant and coaccused Sultan the alleged
incident occurred.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that the applicant is
innocent and has falsely been implicated in
the present case. The applicant has no role
in causing the alleged explosion. The
ammunition (explosive substance) which is
used on the occasion of marriage was kept
in the vehicle and the applicant and
nautanki team were also going in the said
vehicle. The injured were also doing drama
in Nautanki and the explosion was caused
due to unavoidable circumstances. Thus
there is no role of the applicant or any other
coaccused person named in the FIR for
causing the alleged explosion. It is a case of
accident and the death was unintentional,
for which the applicant is not responsible,
even
though
the
statements
of
the
independent witnesses were recorded in
which they have also stated that it is case of
accident and there was no involvement of
the applicant in causing the alleged
explosion. As per the post mortem
examination report of deceased cause of
death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a
result of ante mortem blast injuries.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that there is vast material
contradiction in the statements of the
independent witnesses and the version of
FIR. As per the version of FIR and the
statements of the independent witnesses no
specific role has been assigned to the
applicant. No incriminating article has been
recovered from the possession of the
applicant or at his pointing out. The
statement of injured namely Dhannu has
neither been recorded under section 161
Cr.P.C. nor has been made witness of
charge sheet.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant
referred
to
the
statement
of
one
independent witness Askgar Ali under
section 161 Cr.P.C. who was working as
Joker in Nautanki, in which he stated that
coaccused Shiv Kumar who was also
working in Nautanki team had kept Baruud
in his bag and while dragging articles in
hurried manner, the Baruud suddenly
exploded, due to which the alleged incident
11 All. Abbu Sahma Vs. State of U.P.
891
occurred. It is a case of accident and as per
his statement no role has been assigned to
the applicant.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the role of applicant was of
carrying the explosive substance in his
vehicle and while unloading the nautanki
articles from the vehicle the ammunition
(explosive substances) kept in the vehicle
blasted. Thus it is a case of accident.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that, coaccused Shiv Kumar, who
is identically placed and similar allegation
has been levelled as of the applicant, has
already been granted bail by a coordinate
bench of this Court vide order dated
8.8.2022
in
Criminal
Misc.
Bail
Application No. 7885 of 2022 and the case
of the present applicant is not on the worse
footing than that of the said co-accused, has
already been granted bail by this Court ,
thus the bail application of the applicant
may also be considered by this Court
sympathetically and the applicant is also
entitled for the benefit of the same and to
be released on bail.

9. Several other submissions in order
to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations
made against the applicant have also been
placed
forth before
the
Court. The
circumstances which, according to the
counsel, led to the false implication of the
accused have also been touched upon at
length. It has been assured on behalf of the
applicant that he is ready to cooperate with
the process of law and shall faithfully make
himself available before the court whenever
required and is also ready to accept all the
conditions which the Court may deem fit to
impose upon him. The applicant undertakes
that in case he is released on bail, he will
not misuse the liberty of bail and will
cooperate in trial. It has also been pointed
out that the accused is not having any
criminal history and he is in jail since
24.5.2022 and that in the wake of heavy
pendency of cases in the Court, there is no
likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

10. Learned AGA opposed the prayer
for bail and submitted that due to action of
the applicant the blast took place and one
person died but did not dispute the fact that
on similar allegation coaccused Shiv
Kumar has already been granted bail by a
coordinate bench of this Court.

11. After perusing the record in the light
of the submissions made at the bar and after
taking an overall view of all the facts and
circumstances of this case, the nature of
evidence, the period of detention already
undergone,
the
unlikelihood
of
early
conclusion of trial and also the absence of
any convincing material to indicate the
possibility of tampering with the evidence,
considering the fact that the applicant and
three injured person including deceased were
sitting in the vehicle and the explosive
substances and nautanki articles were kept in
the vehicle, while unloading the nautanki
articles the explosive substances blasted, as
per the version of FIR and the statements of
the independent witnesses no role has been
assigned to the applicant in causing the
explosion and it is a case of accident; there is
vast material contradiction in the statements
of the independent witnesses and the version
of FIR; on similar allegation the aforesaid
coaccused has already been granted bail by a
coordinate bench of this Court, therefore, the
case of the present applicant also does not
appear to be on the worse footing than that of
the aforesaid coaccused, thus the bail
application of the present applicant is being
considered by this Court sympathetically and
further considering the larger mandate of
892 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22,
this Court is of the view that the applicant
may be enlarged on bail.

12. The prayer for bail is granted. The
application is allowed.

13. Let the applicant Abbu Sahma
involved in Case Crime No. 163 of 2022,
under Sections 304, 308 IPC and section 5
Explosive Substances Act, Police Station
Dariyabad, District Barabanki, be released on
bail on his executing a personal bond and two
sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the court concerned on the
following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make
any attempt to tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally
appear on each and every date fixed in the
court below and his personal presence shall
not be exempted unless the court itself deems
it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

(3) The applicant shall cooperate in
the trial sincerely without seeking any
adjournment.

(4) The applicant shall not indulge
in any criminal activity or commission of any
crime after being released on bail.

(5) In case the applicant 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.

(6) The applicant shall remain
present in person, before the trial court on the
date fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii)
framing of charge and (iii) recording of
statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the
opinion of the trial court absence of the
applicant 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.

(7) The party shall file computer
generated copy of such order downloaded
from the official website of High Court
Allahabad or certified copy issued from the
Registry of the High Court, Allahabad.

(8)
The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy of the
order from the official website of High Court,
Allahabad and shall make a declaration of
such verification in writing.

14. It may be observed that in the event
of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the
court below shall be at liberty to proceed for
the cancellation of the applicant's bail.

15. It is clarified that the observations,
if any, made in this order are strictly confined
to the disposal of the bail application and
must not be construed to have any reflection
on the ultimate merits of the case.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 892
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ A No. 9535 of 2022
Alongwith other cases

Smt. Anupam Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents