High Court

1. As per office report dated 30.08.2024, notice upon the opposite party No.2 is served and names of Shri Brajendra Singh, Shri Hari Shankar Shukla, Shri Pranav Pandey and Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Advocates are printed in the cause list but when the case is called out none appeared to oppose the appeal. In the aforesaid background, the court proceeded to hear the appeal. Heard Shri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant,

2. learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes 3. and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow in Bail Application No.1266/2024, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.134/2023, under Sections 302, 201, 34, 394, 411 I.P.C. and Section 4/25 of the Arms and Section 3 (2) V of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Kakori, District - Lucknow whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

4. While pressing the instant application for bail, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

5. He further stated that co-accused namely Satyendra Kumar has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 03.10.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.807 of 2025. Copy of bail order of co-accused Satyendra Kumar has been placed on record as Annexure No.RA-2 to the rejoinder affidavit. In these circumstances, the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 2 Relevant portion of the order dated 03.10.2024 passed in Criminal

6. Appeal No.807 of 2024 on reproduction reads as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record. Learned counsel for the appellant states that he does not want to file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the State. The State, along with its counter affidavit, has enclosed copy of communication sent by the police station Kakori, district Lucknow to the opposite party no. 2 and even after service of notice the opposite party no. 2 is not represented.

2. The instant criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) SC/ST Act has been filed by the appellant- Satendra Kumar for grant of bail and for setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 10620 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.0134 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201, 34, 394 and 411 IPC read with Section 3(2)V S.C./S.T. Act lodged at Police Station Kakori, District Lucknow during trial.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, while pressing the appeal, submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence, as claimed by the prosecution. FIR of the instant case has been lodged by father of the deceased on 20.05.2023 at 23.35 hours alleging therein that on 19.05.2023 at about 1 p.m. the deceased had gone on motorcycle of his brother informing that he is going to take the money which he has lend to some persons and thereafter he got missing and in this regard a missing report was lodged, however, on 20.05.2023 at 6.30 p.m., an information was received that dead-body of a person is lying in the vacant office of Jansahara and the same was found to be the dead- body of his son. It is vehemently submitted that neither the appellant nor any other accused persons was named in the FIR nor any suspicion or apprehension has been shown against the appellant in the statement of the informant and other family members of the deceased recorded by the investigating officer under section 161 CrPC. It is vehemently submitted that on the information provided by a police informer the appellant and other two co-accused persons are shown to have been arrested on 22.05.2023 and they have also shown to have confessed their guilt in terms that the deceased on account of prior enmity pertaining to payment of some money was done to death by co-accused- Brijendra Kumar alias Birju and the role of the appellant is of guarding the place by standing outside and also helping the main accused- Brijendra Kumar alias Birju in disposing of dead-body of the deceased.

4. It is vehemently submitted that in support of the allegations, as levelled against the appellant, there is no evidence/material except the confessional statement of the appellant and of other co-accused persons which could not be proved against them in view of bar contained under section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that 'Banka' is also shown to have been recovered on pointing of co- accused- Brijendra Kumar alias Birju and the motive was also available to him, therefore, the case of the appellant is distinguishable from the role of the co- accused- Brijendra Kumar alias Birju.

5. It is next submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail in this case since 25.05.2023 and having regard to the pace with which the trial is travelling before the trial court, the same is not going to conclude in near future. He is not having any previous criminal record to his credit. Charge-sheet in this case has also been filed and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. 3

6. Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was a close associate of the main accused- Brijendra Kumar alias Birju. He had brought bottles of beer twice on the instructions of main accused- Brijendra Kumar alias Birju and has also cooperated in commission of the crime and was guarding the place by standing outside the spot whereon the deceased has been done to death and, thus, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the deceased got missing from after-noon of 19.05.2023 and missing report was lodged on 20.05.2023 in early hours at the concerned police station, however, the dead-body of the deceased was recovered from vacant office of a company at 6.30 p.m. The informant and other family members whose statements have been recorded by the investigating officer has not shown any suspicion or apprehension so far as the appellant is concerned. The deceased as per the postmortem report has sustained as many as eight incised wounds and the cause of death has been ascertained as shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries. It was on the arrest of the appellant and two other accused persons, as shown, they have confessed their guilt and the motorcycle on which the deceased has left his home has been recovered and in the confessional statement the act of committing murder of the deceased has been accepted/acknowledged by the main accused- Brijendra Kumar alias Birju, while the role of the appellant was of guarding the place on the instructions of co-accused- Brijendra Kumar alias Birju and also of bringing bottles of beer and also of helping the main accused- Brijendra Kumar alias Birju in disposing of the dead-body of the deceased. The appellant is languishing in jail in this case since 25.05.2023. He is not having any previous criminal record to his credit. There is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the appellant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, a case for bail is emerging in favour of the appellant, however, the learned trial court appears to have committed an illegality, while rejecting the plea of bail of the appellant. The apprehension of the informant/opposite party no. 2 may be taken care of while placing adequate conditions upon the appellant.

8. In result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial court is set-aside. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

9. Let the appellant- Satendra Kumar involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. (ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (iii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

11. Identity, status and residence proof of the appellant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

12. Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail appeal and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case ." 4

6. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel including that co-accused have already been released on bail by this Court.

7. Upon due consideration of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and the facts & circumstances of the case including the role attributed to the appellant as also that co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court and 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.

8. Order dated 29.02.2024, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow in Bail Application No.1266/2024, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.134/2023, under Sections 302, 201, 34, 394, 411 I.P.C. and Section 4/25 of the Arms and Section 3 (2) V of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Kakori, District - Lucknow is hereby set aside.

9. Let the appellant - Brijendra Kumar alias Birju be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond 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. 5

10. In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

11. 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 :- 14.7.2025 ML/-

1. As per office report dated 30.08.2024, notice upon the opposite party No.2 is served and names of Shri Brajendra Singh, Shri Hari Shankar Shukla, Shri Pranav Pandey and Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Advocates are printed in the cause list but when the case is called out none appeared to oppose the appeal. In the aforesaid background, the court proceeded to hear the appeal. Heard Shri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant,

2. learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. The present appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes 3. and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow in Bail Application No.1266/2024, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.134/2023, under Sections 302, 201, 34, 394, 411 I.P.C. and Section 4/25 of the Arms and Section 3 (2) V of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Kakori, District - Lucknow whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

4. While pressing the instant application for bail, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

5. He further stated that co-accused namely Satyendra Kumar has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 03.10.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.807 of 2025. Copy of bail order of co-accused Satyendra Kumar has been placed on record as Annexure No.RA-2 to the rejoinder affidavit. In these circumstances, the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 2 Relevant portion of the order dated 03.10.2024 passed in Criminal

6. Appeal No.807 of 2024 on reproduction reads as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record. Learned counsel for the appellant states that he does not want to file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the State. The State, along with its counter affidavit, has enclosed copy of communication sent by the police station Kakori, district Lucknow to the opposite party no. 2 and even after service of notice the opposite party no. 2 is not represented.

2. The instant criminal appeal under Section 14(A)(2) SC/ST Act has been filed by the appellant- Satendra Kumar for grant of bail and for setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 10620 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No.0134 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201, 34, 394 and 411 IPC read with Section 3(2)V S.C./S.T. Act lodged at Police Station Kakori, District Lucknow during trial.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, while pressing the appeal, submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence, as claimed by the prosecution. FIR of the instant case has been lodged by father of the deceased on 20.05.2023 at 23.35 hours alleging therein that on 19.05.2023 at about 1 p.m. the deceased had gone on motorcycle of his brother informing that he is going to take the money which he has lend to some persons and thereafter he got missing and in this regard a missing report was lodged, however, on 20.05.2023 at 6.30 p.m., an information was received that dead-body of a person is lying in the vacant office of Jansahara and the same was found to be the dead- body of his son. It is vehemently submitted that neither the appellant nor any other accused persons was named in the FIR nor any suspicion or apprehension has been shown against the appellant in the statement of the informant and other family members of the deceased recorded by the investigating officer under section 161 CrPC. It is vehemently submitted that on the information provided by a police informer the appellant and other two co-accused persons are shown to have been arrested on 22.05.2023 and they have also shown to have confessed their guilt in terms that the deceased on account of prior enmity pertaining to payment of some money was done to death by co-accused- Brijendra Kumar alias Birju and the role of the appellant is of guarding the place by standing outside and also helping the main accused- Brijendra Kumar alias Birju in disposing of dead-body of the deceased.

4. It is vehemently submitted that in support of the allegations, as levelled against the appellant, there is no evidence/material except the confessional statement of the appellant and of other co-accused persons which could not be proved against them in view of bar contained under section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that 'Banka' is also shown to have been recovered on pointing of co- accused- Brijendra Kumar alias Birju and the motive was also available to him, therefore, the case of the appellant is distinguishable from the role of the co- accused- Brijendra Kumar alias Birju.

5. It is next submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail in this case since 25.05.2023 and having regard to the pace with which the trial is travelling before the trial court, the same is not going to conclude in near future. He is not having any previous criminal record to his credit. Charge-sheet in this case has also been filed and there is no apprehension that after being released on bail, he may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. 3

6. Learned A.G.A., however, opposes the prayer of bail of the appellant on the ground that the appellant was a close associate of the main accused- Brijendra Kumar alias Birju. He had brought bottles of beer twice on the instructions of main accused- Brijendra Kumar alias Birju and has also cooperated in commission of the crime and was guarding the place by standing outside the spot whereon the deceased has been done to death and, thus, he is not entitled to be released on bail.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the deceased got missing from after-noon of 19.05.2023 and missing report was lodged on 20.05.2023 in early hours at the concerned police station, however, the dead-body of the deceased was recovered from vacant office of a company at 6.30 p.m. The informant and other family members whose statements have been recorded by the investigating officer has not shown any suspicion or apprehension so far as the appellant is concerned. The deceased as per the postmortem report has sustained as many as eight incised wounds and the cause of death has been ascertained as shock and haemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries. It was on the arrest of the appellant and two other accused persons, as shown, they have confessed their guilt and the motorcycle on which the deceased has left his home has been recovered and in the confessional statement the act of committing murder of the deceased has been accepted/acknowledged by the main accused- Brijendra Kumar alias Birju, while the role of the appellant was of guarding the place on the instructions of co-accused- Brijendra Kumar alias Birju and also of bringing bottles of beer and also of helping the main accused- Brijendra Kumar alias Birju in disposing of the dead-body of the deceased. The appellant is languishing in jail in this case since 25.05.2023. He is not having any previous criminal record to his credit. There is no apprehension that after being released on bail, the appellant may flee from the course of law or may otherwise misuse the liberty. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, a case for bail is emerging in favour of the appellant, however, the learned trial court appears to have committed an illegality, while rejecting the plea of bail of the appellant. The apprehension of the informant/opposite party no. 2 may be taken care of while placing adequate conditions upon the appellant.

8. In result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial court is set-aside. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

9. Let the appellant- Satendra Kumar involved in above-mentioned case, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions:- (i) The appellant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial. (ii) The appellant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment. (iii) The appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.

10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

11. Identity, status and residence proof of the appellant and sureties be verified by the Court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

12. Observations made herein-above by this court are only for the purpose of disposal of this bail appeal and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case ." 4

6. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel including that co-accused have already been released on bail by this Court.

7. Upon due consideration of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and the facts & circumstances of the case including the role attributed to the appellant as also that co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court and 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.

8. Order dated 29.02.2024, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow in Bail Application No.1266/2024, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.134/2023, under Sections 302, 201, 34, 394, 411 I.P.C. and Section 4/25 of the Arms and Section 3 (2) V of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Kakori, District - Lucknow is hereby set aside.

9. Let the appellant - Brijendra Kumar alias Birju be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond 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. 5

10. In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

11. 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 :- 14.7.2025 ML/-