High Court

Appellant :- Sandeep Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Dwivedi,Ashutosh Pandey,Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Devesh Jaiswal,Manoj Kumar Mishra,Sourabh Pandey Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 is taken on record. Heard counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State as also Mr. Anubhav Awasthi, advocate, holding brief of Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, counsel for the respondent no. 2.

2. As per office report dated 19.09.2024, the service of notice upon opposite party No. 2/ informant is sufficient but till date no response to the present bail application has been filed by the opposite party No. 2.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 challenging the order dated 18.06.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar, in Second Bail Application No. 97/2024, arising out of F.I.R/ Case Crime No. 408 of 2023, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 364 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Rajesultanpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar.

4. While pressing the present appeal seeking bail, the counsel for the appellant submits that a perusal of the prosecution story from its very inception clearly indicates that no offence has been committed by the appellant who is in jail since 02.02.2024.

5. In continuation, it is stated that the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons and during investigation, the name of the present applicant and other co-accused surfaced. It is also stated that the story of the prosecution indicated by the opposite party No. 2 in his statement would show that the co-accused Durgesh and deceased were in affairs and the applicant is a friend of the co-accused and according to the CCTV footage, the victim was last seen with the co-accused Durgesh.

6. It is further submitted that in fact there is no evidence to establish the complicity of the applicant in the crime indicated in the F.I.R.

7. Further submission is that other co-accused namely Archana Singh @ Pinki Singh, Rahul@ Pankaj, Nitesh Nishad and Rahul Maurya have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 21.05.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2024; vide order dated 11.06.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5791 of 2024; vide order dated 12.08.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1743 of 2024 & vide order dated 22.08.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2055 of 2024, respectively.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the principles of parity.

9. It is further stated that in fact, no evidence is available against the appellant and the case of the prosecution against the applicant is based on the bald and vague allegations levelled by the informant in Majeed Bayaan, which was taken after delay.

10. It is further stated that in the facts of the case aforesaid, the appeal is liable to be allowed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

11. Learned A.G.A. as also counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2/ complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the contention made by counsel for the appellant.

12. Having considered the submissions advanced by counsels for the parties and contents of the documents on record including the F.I.R.; statement(s) of informant and his wife as also of co-accused and also the provisions as envisaged under Section 24 to 27 of the Indian Evidence Act; and the fact that other co-accused persons have been granted bail, this Court is of the view that the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 18.06.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar, in Second Bail Application No. 97/2024, arising out of F.I.R/ Case Crime No. 408 of 2023, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 364 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Rajesultanpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar is hereby set aside.

14. Let appellant Sandeep Pal 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.

15. 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.

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 :- 12.2.2025 (Manoj K.)

Appellant :- Sandeep Pal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Dwivedi,Ashutosh Pandey,Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Devesh Jaiswal,Manoj Kumar Mishra,Sourabh Pandey Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

1. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 is taken on record. Heard counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State as also Mr. Anubhav Awasthi, advocate, holding brief of Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, counsel for the respondent no. 2.

2. As per office report dated 19.09.2024, the service of notice upon opposite party No. 2/ informant is sufficient but till date no response to the present bail application has been filed by the opposite party No. 2.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 challenging the order dated 18.06.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar, in Second Bail Application No. 97/2024, arising out of F.I.R/ Case Crime No. 408 of 2023, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 364 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Rajesultanpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar.

4. While pressing the present appeal seeking bail, the counsel for the appellant submits that a perusal of the prosecution story from its very inception clearly indicates that no offence has been committed by the appellant who is in jail since 02.02.2024.

5. In continuation, it is stated that the F.I.R. was lodged against unknown persons and during investigation, the name of the present applicant and other co-accused surfaced. It is also stated that the story of the prosecution indicated by the opposite party No. 2 in his statement would show that the co-accused Durgesh and deceased were in affairs and the applicant is a friend of the co-accused and according to the CCTV footage, the victim was last seen with the co-accused Durgesh.

6. It is further submitted that in fact there is no evidence to establish the complicity of the applicant in the crime indicated in the F.I.R.

7. Further submission is that other co-accused namely Archana Singh @ Pinki Singh, Rahul@ Pankaj, Nitesh Nishad and Rahul Maurya have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 21.05.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2024; vide order dated 11.06.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5791 of 2024; vide order dated 12.08.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1743 of 2024 & vide order dated 22.08.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2055 of 2024, respectively.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the present applicant is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the principles of parity.

9. It is further stated that in fact, no evidence is available against the appellant and the case of the prosecution against the applicant is based on the bald and vague allegations levelled by the informant in Majeed Bayaan, which was taken after delay.

10. It is further stated that in the facts of the case aforesaid, the appeal is liable to be allowed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

11. Learned A.G.A. as also counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party No. 2/ complainant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the contention made by counsel for the appellant.

12. Having considered the submissions advanced by counsels for the parties and contents of the documents on record including the F.I.R.; statement(s) of informant and his wife as also of co-accused and also the provisions as envisaged under Section 24 to 27 of the Indian Evidence Act; and the fact that other co-accused persons have been granted bail, this Court is of the view that the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 18.06.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar, in Second Bail Application No. 97/2024, arising out of F.I.R/ Case Crime No. 408 of 2023, under Sections 147, 302, 201, 364 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Rajesultanpur, District- Ambedkar Nagar is hereby set aside.

14. Let appellant Sandeep Pal 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.

15. 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.

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 :- 12.2.2025 (Manoj K.)