High Court

Appellant :- Mohit Verma @ Dhirendra Kumar Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sachida Nand,Renu Devi,Sanat Singh,Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anand Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

1. On 05.08.2025, this Court passed the following order:- "Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 despite name of Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, Advocate is printed in the cause list as counsel for the opposite party No. 2. In the interest of justice, the case adjourned today. List/put up this case on 11.08.2025 within top ten cases in terms of earlier order of the Court. It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned on any ground including the illness/out of station slip of the counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 and it would be heard and decided."

2. Today, when the case called out, no one appeared on behalf of private opposite party No. 2 to oppose the present appeal. However, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State are present before this Court.

3. In the aforesaid background of the case, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

4. By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 04.04.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 1020 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 517 of 2023 under Sections 302, 201, 328 IPC and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Ramsanehighat, District-Barabanki.

5. It is stated that marriage of the deceased was solemnized by the co-accused Roop Rani and as per FIR lodged by the father of the deceased, co-accused Roop Rani and present appellant committed the crime. This FIR further indicates that body of the deceased was recovered from a Well situated in the agricultural field of one Ram Gopal on 25.12.2023.

6. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged after delay of two days i.e. 27.12.2023 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Ramsanehi Ghat, District- Barabanki.

7. It is also stated that a perusal of the FIR, the basis of criminal proceedings against the appellant, would indicate that it is a case of circumstantial evidence as no one is the eye witness of the incident.

8. Further stated that the appellant is in jail since 29.12.2023 and accordingly, the period of incarceration would be about one year and seven months.

9. He stated that before the trial Court the informant Budhram, father of the deceased as also Nanku, brother of the deceased, have already been examined and as such it can be inferred that main witnesses of the fact could not be influenced by the appellant after being released on bail. It is also stated that other witnesses of the prosecution are formal witnesses and amongst them, Vishwanath Singh and Sawant Kumar, have also been examined and as per charge sheet, the prosecution would examine as many as eighteen witnesses in the matter and in this view of the matter, the chances of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak.

10. Thus, taking note of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

11. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

12. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., post-mortem report as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) of witnesses of the fact recorded before the trial Court.

13. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

14. The order dated 04.04.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 1020 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 517 of 2023 under Sections 302, 201, 328 IPC and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Ramsanehighat, District-Barabanki, is hereby set aside.

15. Let appellant- Mohit Verma @ Dhirendra Kumar Verma, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

16. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Vinay/-

Appellant :- Mohit Verma @ Dhirendra Kumar Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sachida Nand,Renu Devi,Sanat Singh,Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Anand Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

1. On 05.08.2025, this Court passed the following order:- "Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 despite name of Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, Advocate is printed in the cause list as counsel for the opposite party No. 2. In the interest of justice, the case adjourned today. List/put up this case on 11.08.2025 within top ten cases in terms of earlier order of the Court. It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned on any ground including the illness/out of station slip of the counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 and it would be heard and decided."

2. Today, when the case called out, no one appeared on behalf of private opposite party No. 2 to oppose the present appeal. However, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State are present before this Court.

3. In the aforesaid background of the case, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

4. By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 04.04.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 1020 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 517 of 2023 under Sections 302, 201, 328 IPC and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Ramsanehighat, District-Barabanki.

5. It is stated that marriage of the deceased was solemnized by the co-accused Roop Rani and as per FIR lodged by the father of the deceased, co-accused Roop Rani and present appellant committed the crime. This FIR further indicates that body of the deceased was recovered from a Well situated in the agricultural field of one Ram Gopal on 25.12.2023.

6. It is further submitted that the FIR was lodged after delay of two days i.e. 27.12.2023 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Ramsanehi Ghat, District- Barabanki.

7. It is also stated that a perusal of the FIR, the basis of criminal proceedings against the appellant, would indicate that it is a case of circumstantial evidence as no one is the eye witness of the incident.

8. Further stated that the appellant is in jail since 29.12.2023 and accordingly, the period of incarceration would be about one year and seven months.

9. He stated that before the trial Court the informant Budhram, father of the deceased as also Nanku, brother of the deceased, have already been examined and as such it can be inferred that main witnesses of the fact could not be influenced by the appellant after being released on bail. It is also stated that other witnesses of the prosecution are formal witnesses and amongst them, Vishwanath Singh and Sawant Kumar, have also been examined and as per charge sheet, the prosecution would examine as many as eighteen witnesses in the matter and in this view of the matter, the chances of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak.

10. Thus, taking note of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

11. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

12. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., post-mortem report as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) of witnesses of the fact recorded before the trial Court.

13. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

14. The order dated 04.04.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 1020 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 517 of 2023 under Sections 302, 201, 328 IPC and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Ramsanehighat, District-Barabanki, is hereby set aside.

15. Let appellant- Mohit Verma @ Dhirendra Kumar Verma, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

16. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Vinay/-