REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 159           OF 2012 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 10244 of 2010)

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