LexMAULANA MOHD. AMIR RASHADI versus STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 311 MAULANA MOHD. AMIR RASHAD! . v. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 2012) JANUARY 16, 2012 [P. SATHASIVAM AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] A B Bail: Conditional bail - Grant of - Allegation against second respondent that he along with his supporters attacked the convoy of the appellant which resulted in death of one C person and injury to another - Bail application of the second respondent allowed by the High Court on certain conditions - On appeal, held: The second respondent was a sitting ' Member of Parliament facing several criminal cases and most of the cases ended in acquittal for want of proper D witnesses or were pending trial - As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of tho 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 E circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court - The appellant has already been provided adequate protection - Assurance was given by the State that trial would not be prolonged and would be concluded within a reasonable time - High Court while F granting bail also imposed several conditions for strict adherence during the period of bail - In addition to the same, 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 G appropriate steps as observed by the High Court - Interference with the order of the High Court is not called for - Trial court is directed to complete the trial within a period of 311 H 312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 1 S.C.R. A four months from the date of the receipt of copy of this order without unnecessary adjournments. The allegation against the accused-second respondent was that on 12.8.2009 he along with his 8 supporters attacked the convoy of the appellant which resulted in death of one person and injury to another. The second respondent was arrested. The second respondent filed a bail application before the High Court. The appellant raised objection that he had been receiving C threatening calls from the second respondent warning him not to pursue the case. Meanwhile, charge sheet was filed against the second respondent and three other persons under Sections 302, 307 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC. Pending trial, the High Court granted conditional bail to the second respondent. D E In the instant appeal, the only point for consideration was whether the High Court was justified in enlarging the second respondent on bail after imposing certain conditions. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: It is not in dispute 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 F ended in acquittal for want of proper witnesses or pending trial. As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of 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 G the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc. In the instant case, the second respondent was arrested and was in jail since 24.08.2009. Another important aspect was that after filing H of charge-sheet on 15.07.2010, prosecution examined MAULANA MOHD. AMIR RASHADI v. STATE OF U.P. 313 &ANR. two important witnesses as PWs 1 and 2. This was the A 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 B other objection of the appellant for grant of bail was that he had received threats from the second respondent and his supporters warning him not to pursue the case against him. The appellant has already been provided adequate protection. Taking note of all these aspects, C 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 n
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.