Maulana Mohd.Amir Rashadi vs State Of U.P.& Anr

Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. & Anr. .... Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam,J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and

order dated 06.08.2010 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.

28420 of 2009 whereby the High Court has granted bail to

Mr. Ramakant Yadav - respondent No.2/accused in Case

Crime No. 622 of 2009, FIR No. 63 of 2009 under Sections 302

1

and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `IPC'), Police

Station Phoolpur, District Azamgarh, U.P.

3) Brief facts:

(a) According to the appellant, he is the President of a

political party, namely, Rashtriya Ulema Council. On

12.08.2009, a meeting of the Party was to be held at Phoolpur,

District Azamgarh, U.P. from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. and he was to

attend the said meeting in the capacity of Chief Guest.

b) At about 1.45 p.m., the appellant started towards the

venue of the meeting and his convoy was being led by 10 to 15

supporters who were riding on motorcycles. At that moment,

the second respondent/accused came from behind in the

convoy of cars and immediately after crossing the appellant's

car and his supporters, the convoy of cars belonging to the

second respondent/accused suddenly stopped on the road

without giving any signal and the second respondent/accused

came out of his vehicle armed with a gun along with his

supporters who were also carrying guns and they started

giving kick blows to one of the motorcycle riders who fell down

and the pillion riders of the said motorcycles were fired upon

2

by the second respondent and his supporters from their

respective guns and thereafter, they ran away from the place.

Adbul Rehman-the pillion rider sustained serious fire arm

injuries. When he was taken to the hospital at Varanasi, he

succumbed to his injuries.

c) On the basis of a written complaint in the Police Station,

Phoolpur, FIR No. 63 of 2009 under Sections 302 and 307 IPC

was registered. The second respondent was arrested only on

24.08.2009. It was further stated by the appellant that the

accused is a habitual criminal and has a criminal background

having more than three dozen cases involving serious offences

against him. The second respondent filed a Criminal Bail

Application being No. 28420 of 2009 before the High Court

praying for his release. The appellant filed his objection. He

also highlighted that from 14.08.2009, the appellant started

receiving threatening calls from the second respondent

warning him not to pursue the case otherwise he shall be

eliminated.

d) On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed

on 15.07.2010 against respondent No.2 and three other

3

persons under Sections 302, 307 and 325 read with 34 IPC

and the trial of the case has been started by examining the

injured witness - Farhan as PW-1 on 29.04.2010 and

15.07.2010.

e) Pending proceeding of the trial, the High Court, by

impugned order dated 06.08.2010, granted conditional bail to

the second respondent. Questioning the same and of the fact

that the appellant had received several threat calls, he filed the

present appeal for setting aside the same.

4) Heard Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned senior counsel for the

appellant and Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, learned senior

counsel for the contesting second respondent.

5) The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether

the High Court was justified in enlarging the second

respondent on bail after imposing certain conditions.

6) It is not in dispute and highlighted that the second

respondent is a sitting Member of Parliament facing several

criminal cases. It is also not in dispute that most of the cases

ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending

trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of

4

criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent

cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court

to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has

been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of

fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.

7) In the case relating to FIR No. 63 of 2009, he was

arrested and in jail since 24.08.2009. Another important

aspect is that after filing of charge-sheet on 15.07.2010,

prosecution examined two important witnesses as PWs 1 and

2. This was the position prevailing on 26.07.2010. Even

thereafter, now more than a year has rolled. Counsel

appearing for the State assured that the trial will not be

prolonged at the instance of the prosecution and ready to

complete the evidence within a period to be directed by this

Court. The other objection of the appellant for grant of bail is

that he had received threats from the second respondent and

his supporters warning him not to pursue the case against

him. It is brought to our notice that based on the

representations of the appellant, adequate protection had

already been provided to him.

5 8) Taking note of all these aspects, particularly, the fact

that the second respondent was in jail since 24.08.2009, the

trial has commenced by examining the two witnesses on the

side of the prosecution and the assurance by the State that

trial will not be prolonged and conclude within a reasonable

time and also of the fact that the High Court while granting

bail has imposed several conditions for strict adherence during

the period of bail, we are not inclined to interfere with the

order of the High Court. In fact, in the impugned order itself,

the High Court has made it clear that in case of breach of any

of the conditions, the trial Court will have liberty to take steps

to send the applicant therein (respondent No.2 herein) to jail

again. In addition to the same, it is further made clear that if

the appellant receives any fresh threat from the second

respondent or from his supporters, he is free to inform the

trial Court and in such event the trial Court is free to take

appropriate steps as observed by the High Court. We also

direct the Trial Court to complete the trial within a period of

four months from the date of the receipt of copy of this order

without unnecessary adjournments.

6 9) With the above observation, finding no merit for

interference with the order of the High Court, the appeal is

dismissed.

...........................................J.

(P. SATHASIVAM)

...........................................J.

(J. CHELAMESWAR)

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 16, 2012.

7