Ravindra Pal Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko. And Another

"None has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 to press the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State are present. In the interest of justice, one more opportunity is given to the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 to argue the case. List in the week commencing 03.11.2025. "

2. Today, when the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 2-complainant to oppose the present appeal. In this view of the matter, this Court proceeds to hear the instant appeal with the assistance of learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 05.10.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District- Lucknow (in short 'trial court') in Bail Application No. 7543 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.05/2024 under Sections 302/201 IPC & 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Cantt., District-Lucknow, whereby rejecting the bail application of the appellant.

4. The submissions of learned counsel for the appellant/applicant is that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely been implicated in the case.

5. It is further stated that FIR was lodged by Ramdas/opposite party no.2 making allegations against Suraj Yadav alias Momant, Palak, Raj Thakur and also against unknown persons which appellant/applicant was neither named in the FIR nor allegations were levelled by the complainant/opposite party no.2 against the appellant. family members of Palak. Thus, includes

6. It is further stated that according to the written report, based upon which the FIR No. 05/2024 under Sections 302/201 IPC & 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Cantt., District-Lucknow, was lodged on 20.01.2024, the deceased was in affair with named accused namely Palak and another named accused namely Suraj Yadav alias Momant was also in touch with the co-accused Palak, which relationship was opposed 2 CRLA No. 3473 of 2024 by the deceased Kaushik Kumar s/o Ramdas/opposite party no.2 and therefore, the named accused alongwith unknown persons conspired and thereafter administered pieces of glasses in liquor to the deceased resulting injuries, on account of which the deceased died. The written report also indicates that the deceased was assaulted with 'Lathi' and 'Danda'.

7. It is further stated that story indicated in the FIR is concocted, and the same could be inferred from the fact that the concerned doctor after conducting the postmortem, could not found the reason of death and therefore the viscera was preserved and according to the expert opinion the deceased died on account of consumption of poison substance.

8. It is further stated that the Investigating Officer (in short 'I.O.') dropped the names of Suraj Yadav alias Momant, Palak and Raj Thakur during investigation and based upon the statement of Suraj Yadav alias Momant, the I.O. implicated the present appellant and was sent to jail on 30.08.2024.

9. It is further stated that implication of the appellant is based upon the statement of accused named in the FIR namely Suraj Yadav alias Momant and also the CDR report, according to which the appellant and deceased were in talking terms and soon before the death the deceased and appellant made conversation with each other.

10. He says that in so far as the statement of Suraj Yadav alias Momant is concerned, the chances of conviction of appellant based upon the same are very bleak. In regard to CDR report it is stated that expert report has not been filed before the trial court till date and the same would also not be beneficial to the story of the prosecution.

11. It is also stated that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no direct link available with the prosecution to convict the appellant nor prosecution is having the witness of last seen.

12. It is further submitted that appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 30.08.2024 and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak.

13. It is also stated that the charge-sheet in the matter has been filed and therefore, the appellant is not in the position to tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses of prosecution.

14. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

15. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the appellant.

16. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and going through the contents of the appeal, F.I.R., statements of the witness, medical report as well as other relevant documents, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

17. Order dated 05.10.2024 passed by the trial Court in Bail Application No. 7543 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.05/2024 under Sections 302/201 IPC & 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Cantt., District-Lucknow, is hereby set aside.

18. Let appellant HC 1012 Ravindra Pal Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of 3 CRLA No. 3473 of 2024 the like amount, out of which one shall be the family member of the accused- applicant/appellant, 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.

19. 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. November 25, 2025 Jyoti/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.)

"None has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 to press the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State are present. In the interest of justice, one more opportunity is given to the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 to argue the case. List in the week commencing 03.11.2025. "

2. Today, when the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 2-complainant to oppose the present appeal. In this view of the matter, this Court proceeds to hear the instant appeal with the assistance of learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 05.10.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, District- Lucknow (in short 'trial court') in Bail Application No. 7543 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.05/2024 under Sections 302/201 IPC & 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Cantt., District-Lucknow, whereby rejecting the bail application of the appellant.

4. The submissions of learned counsel for the appellant/applicant is that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely been implicated in the case.

5. It is further stated that FIR was lodged by Ramdas/opposite party no.2 making allegations against Suraj Yadav alias Momant, Palak, Raj Thakur and also against unknown persons which appellant/applicant was neither named in the FIR nor allegations were levelled by the complainant/opposite party no.2 against the appellant. family members of Palak. Thus, includes

6. It is further stated that according to the written report, based upon which the FIR No. 05/2024 under Sections 302/201 IPC & 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Cantt., District-Lucknow, was lodged on 20.01.2024, the deceased was in affair with named accused namely Palak and another named accused namely Suraj Yadav alias Momant was also in touch with the co-accused Palak, which relationship was opposed 2 CRLA No. 3473 of 2024 by the deceased Kaushik Kumar s/o Ramdas/opposite party no.2 and therefore, the named accused alongwith unknown persons conspired and thereafter administered pieces of glasses in liquor to the deceased resulting injuries, on account of which the deceased died. The written report also indicates that the deceased was assaulted with 'Lathi' and 'Danda'.

7. It is further stated that story indicated in the FIR is concocted, and the same could be inferred from the fact that the concerned doctor after conducting the postmortem, could not found the reason of death and therefore the viscera was preserved and according to the expert opinion the deceased died on account of consumption of poison substance.

8. It is further stated that the Investigating Officer (in short 'I.O.') dropped the names of Suraj Yadav alias Momant, Palak and Raj Thakur during investigation and based upon the statement of Suraj Yadav alias Momant, the I.O. implicated the present appellant and was sent to jail on 30.08.2024.

9. It is further stated that implication of the appellant is based upon the statement of accused named in the FIR namely Suraj Yadav alias Momant and also the CDR report, according to which the appellant and deceased were in talking terms and soon before the death the deceased and appellant made conversation with each other.

10. He says that in so far as the statement of Suraj Yadav alias Momant is concerned, the chances of conviction of appellant based upon the same are very bleak. In regard to CDR report it is stated that expert report has not been filed before the trial court till date and the same would also not be beneficial to the story of the prosecution.

11. It is also stated that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no direct link available with the prosecution to convict the appellant nor prosecution is having the witness of last seen.

12. It is further submitted that appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 30.08.2024 and the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely bleak.

13. It is also stated that the charge-sheet in the matter has been filed and therefore, the appellant is not in the position to tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses of prosecution.

14. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

15. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the appellant.

16. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and going through the contents of the appeal, F.I.R., statements of the witness, medical report as well as other relevant documents, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

17. Order dated 05.10.2024 passed by the trial Court in Bail Application No. 7543 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.05/2024 under Sections 302/201 IPC & 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Cantt., District-Lucknow, is hereby set aside.

18. Let appellant HC 1012 Ravindra Pal Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of 3 CRLA No. 3473 of 2024 the like amount, out of which one shall be the family member of the accused- applicant/appellant, 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.

19. 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. November 25, 2025 Jyoti/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.)