# Anwar Ali v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 75
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-28
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 982 of 2021
- **Bench:** Suresh Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anwar-ali-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48059
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-
Section 14 (A) (2)- Appeal- Normally bail
should have been granted unless there
exist
circumstances/factors
justifying
denial thereof.

Settled law that grant of bail is normally the rule
while
denial
thereof
is
an
exception.
Consideration of period of incarceration along
with gravity of the offence, role assigned to the
accused and the chances of his absconding or
tampering with the prosecution witnesses, as
well as previous criminal antecedents are some
of the factors to be taken into account by the
Court while granting bail. (Para 7)

Appeal allowed. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

## Text

1 All. Anwar Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
75
against the appellants on the basis of which, it
can safely be concluded that appellants were
the persons, who committed the murder of
deceased Suresh @ Sanju and except their
guilt no other hypothesis can be inferred.

67. Consequently, both the appeals are
dismissed. The judgment and order of
conviction and sentence passed by the trial
court is affirmed. The appellants are in jail
and they will serve out the sentence awarded
by the trial court.

68. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the court below for information and
compliance.
----------
(2022)01ILR A75
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 982 of 2021

Anwar Ali ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Mohit Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Parijaat Mishra Belaura

The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-
Section 14 (A) (2)- Appeal- Normally bail
should have been granted unless there
exist
circumstances/factors
justifying
denial thereof.

Settled law that grant of bail is normally the rule
while
denial
thereof
is
an
exception.
Consideration of period of incarceration along
with gravity of the offence, role assigned to the
accused and the chances of his absconding or
tampering with the prosecution witnesses, as
well as previous criminal antecedents are some
of the factors to be taken into account by the
Court while granting bail. (Para 7)

Appeal allowed. (E-3)

Judgements/ Case law relied upon:-

1. St. thru C.B.I. Vs Amar Mani Tripathi 2005 (8)
SCC 21

2. Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav Vs Cbi
Thru Its Director, 2007 (1) SCC 70

(Delivered by Hon'ble Suresh Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant/appellant, learned A.G.A. for the
State and perused the material available on
record.

2.

This
is
the
second
bail
appeal/application of the applicant. First
bail appeal/application of the applicant was
rejected by this Court on 11.7.2019 with
observation that the appellant would be at
at liberty to revive his application after
recording statement of Ram Bodh and
Arjun Prasad.

3. This appeal has been preferred
under Section 14 (A) (2) of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 against impugned
order dated 25.02.2021 passed by Special
Judge, (SC/ST Act), Sultanpur in second
bail application 496 of 2021 arising out of
Case Crime No. 9 of 2018, under Sections
147, 148, 149, 34, 302 IPC and Section
3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station-
Munshiganj, District- Amethi, whereby the
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bail application of the appellant/applicant
has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for appellant
submits that the appellant is innocent and has
falsely been implicated in the aforesaid
crime. Learned counsel for appellant further
submits that the statement of Ram Bodh and
Arjun Prasad was already recorded by the
trial court, a certified copy of which has been
annexed with this appeal. As per the
statement, the applicant was armed with lathi
and danda which is not a dangerous weapon.
Learned counsel further submits that the coaccused namely Subhash Chandra Srivastava
has already been granted bail by this Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 765 of 2020. Therefore,
the present applicant is also entitle for bail.

5. Learned counsel further submits that
the appellant has no previous criminal history
and he is in jail since 25.02.2018. Learned
counsel further submits that if the appellant is
released on bail, he would not misuse liberty
of bail and is ready to co-operate in the trial.

6. Learned A.G.A. though opposed the
prayer for bail but could not place anything
before this Court so as to bring any
circumstance existing, justifying denial of
bail to accused-applicant when he is already
in jail for a long time.

7. Supreme Court in State through
C.B.I. Vs. Amar Mani Tripathi 2005 (8)
SCC 21 has also observed that normally bail
should have been granted unless there exist
circumstances/factors
justifying
denial
thereof. Some of such circumstances have
been stated as under:

"(i) whether there is any prima
facie or reasonable ground to believe that
the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of the
charge;

(iii) severity of the punishment in
the event of conviction;

(iv)
danger
of
accused
absconding or fleeing if released on bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means,
position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of the offence
being repeated;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of
the witnesses being tampered with; and

(viii) danger, of course, of justice
being thwarted by grant of bail."

8. In Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu
Yadav vs Cbi Through Its Director, 2007
(1) SCC 70 while recognizing that personal
liberty is a valuable constitutional right
recognized
under
Article
21,
Court
observed that while considering question of
bail, judicial approach balancing personal
liberty as well as interest of the society and
also other relevant factors must be
observed. Court further held that personal
liberty of an accused or convict is also a
fundamental right but if the circumstances
so justify, it can be eclipsed. The length for
which an accused has remained in jail
before conviction, i.e., during investigation
or trial, is a relevant consideration for the
reason
that
in
case
ultimately
the
incumbent is found not guilty, i.e. having
not committed any offence, it would be a
travesty of justice to keep such a person in
jail for years together and denial of
personal liberty in such a case though may
be mitigated by awarding appropriate
compensation but cannot appropriately be
compensated at all. Simply because Court
takes a long time in trial, it will not be
justified to keep a person in jail on the
ground that Court or the prosecution is not
efficient enough in completing trial in a
reasonably short period and the incumbent
1 All. Anwar Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
77
must remain in jail, even though ultimately
he may be found innocent. In fact, if a
person is acquitted after a long and delayed
trial, though incumbent was throughout in
jail, even Judicial Officer would be having
a feeling of contrition facing a situation
where a person has served sufficiently a
long term in imprisonment though, is found
innocent and ultimately acquitted. No
uniform principle can be laid down since
every
matter
would
depend
on
the
circumstances of each case and it cannot be
said that a person has remained in jail for
long time, for that reason alone bail must
be granted, but the period during which an
incumbent has been remained in jail, during
investigation or trial is a relevant factor.
These are certain guidelines laid down in
State through C.B.I. v. Amar Mani
Tripathi (supra) were reiterated in Rajesh
Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs CBI
(supra).

9. In view of the above, after hearing
the rival submissions of the parties, and
perused the record, without expressing any
opinion on merits, I find that it is a fit case
for grant of bail of appellant/applicant.

10. Impugned order dated 25.02.2021
is hereby set aside.

11. The appeal is hereby allowed.

12. Let appellant- Anwar Ali be
enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime
number on his furnishing a personal bond
and two sureties each in the like amount to
the satisfaction of the court concerned
subject to following additional conditions,
which are being imposed in the interest of
justice:-

(i) The appellant shall not
tamper with the evidence of witnesses and
shall not commit any offence.

(ii) 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.

(iii) The appellant shall remain
present before the trial court on each date
fixed, either personally or through her
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.

(iv) 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
appellant 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.

(v) The appellant shall remain
present, in person, before the trial court on
the dates 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
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.

(vi) The accused/appellant shall
file computer generated copy of such order
downloaded from the official website of
High Court Allahabad.
78 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(vii) The computer generated
copy of such order shall be self attested by
the counsel of the party concerned.

(viii)
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.
----------
(2022)01ILR A78
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.

First Appeal Defective No. 172 of 2015

Fundan & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri S.K. Tyagi

Counsel for the Respondents:

Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 -
Condonation of delay - sufficient cause - if
some
person
has
taken
a
relief
approaching Court immediately after the
cause of action had arisen, other persons
cannot take benefit thereof approaching
the Court at a belated stage - Petitioners
who are not vigilant but content to be
dormant and chose to sit on the fence till
somebody else's case came to be decided,
can not re-agitate claims which they had
not pursued for several years (Para 19)

Land of the appellant acquired in the year 1980
- S.L.O. gave award on 31.03.1986 - Appeal
filed beyond limitation after 28 years, on coming
to know that a higher compensation has been
awarded to some persons - Held - appellants
cannot be permitted to take impetus of the
judgment passed at the behest of some diligent
person - Inordinate delay of 28 years in filing
appeal on the ground of some judgment of the
High Court awarding higher compensation, is
not sufficient cause for condonation of delay -
 delay condonation application rejected & appeal
dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Para 5, 19)

Dismissed.(E-5)

List of Cases cited :

1. Rup Diamonds Vs U.O.I. 1989 (2) SCC 356

2. St.of Orrisa Vs Mamta Mohanty 2011 (3) SCC
436

3. St. of Karn. Vs. S.M. Kotrayya (1996) 6 SCC 267

4. Mafata lal Industries Ltd. Vs U.O.I. 1997 (5)
SCC 536

5. Basawaraj & anr. Vs Special Land Acquisition
Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81

6. Brijesh Kumar & ors. Vs St. of Har. & ors.
2014 (11) SCC 351

7. Jagdish Lal Vs St. of Har. 1997 (6) SCC 538

8. U.O.I. & anr. vs Raghubir Singh (Dead) By
Lrs. Etc 1989 (2) SCC 754

9. Pundlik Jalam Patil Vs Executive Engineer,
Jalgaon Medium Project, (2008) 17 SCC 448

10. Simrat Kaur & ors. Vs. St. of Har. & ors.
(2015) 13 SCC 563

11. Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy & Ors. (2013) 12 SCC 649

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned
counsel for the applicants/ appellants.

2. This appeal has been filed beyond
limitation 28 years and 355 days along with