State of Uttar Pradesh v. Suneel Kumar Yadav and another) arising out of Case Crime No

1. Heard Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party on the application for bail. in an appeal filed by the first bail application

2. This appellant/applicant (Mukesh Gupta) against the judgement and order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act), Barabanki in Session Trial No.08 of 2019 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Suneel Kumar Yadav and another) arising out of Case Crime No.306 of 2017, under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station-Fatehpur, District-Barabanki, whereby the present appellant/ applicant has been convicted and sentenced for maximum period of life imprisonment with fine stipulations, so far as it relates to the present appellant/ applicant (Mukesh Gupta).

3. Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has stated that the present appellant/ applicant remained on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail. After conviction order dated 19.10.2024, he is in jail.

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein it has been merely indicated by the informant, who is father of the deceased, that one Pick-up bearing No.UP-41/AT-3020 hit the Bike of son of the informant. The son of the informant protested of such rash and negligent driving leading to some altercation. Feeling offended, the Pick-up driver crashed the son of the informant and he died. 2 CRLA No. 3555 of 2024

5. At this stage, Sri Nagendra Mohan has drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of eye witness, wherein PW-2 (Dipak Verma) deposed before the court concerned that the Pick-up was being driven by one Sunil Kumar, co-convict. The role assigned to the present appellant was that when the co-convict, Sunil Kumar, the driver hit the Bike of son of the informant, it led to some altercation between the parties, whereupon allegedly the appellant/ applicant attacked the deceased. According to the said witness, the appellant/ applicant, therafter, exhorted the driver of the vehicle to run over the deceased.

6. It has been thus submitted by Sri Mohan that the role assigned to the present appellant/applicant is of hitting the deceased with Iron rod and of exhorting to run over. He submits that admittedly the appellant/applicant did not run over the deceased, due to which he died.

7. Sri Mohan has also stated that as per the said PW-2 (Dipak Verma) the accused persons were known to the eye witness, Dipak Verma, as well as to the father of the deceased, who later on lodged an F.I.R. on 20.09.2017 but in the entire F.I.R. no specific allegation has been levelled against the appellant/applicant or for that matter against any one although from a perusal of the F.I.R, it appears that this is a case of accident wherein the accused persons are not known to the informant. Moreover, the factum of hitting the deceased by the Iron rod has not even been indicated in the F.I.R and it is quite possible that the head injury might have been caused on account of incident.

8. Sri Nagendra Mohan has stated that the present case is highly motivated as there was some business rivalry between the family of the deceased and the present appellant/ applicant, therefore, the prosecution story has been developed having ulterior motive and extraneous design in the mind of the informant to frame the appellant/ applicant. He has further submitted that all these aspects may be argued at the time of final hearing of the appeal but so far as the bail application is concerned, the present appellant/ applicant has been falsely implicated and he has been convicted by the learned trial court on the basis of perverse findings. The present appellant/ applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. He undertakes on behalf of the present appellant/ applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order. He has also stated that the paper-book is not ready and direction may be issued to the office to prepare the Paper-book at the earliest as and when the appeal is listed he will argue the appeal on 3 CRLA No. 3555 of 2024 merits and will not take any unnecessary adjournment.

9. Per contra, Sri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the bail application of the present appellant/ applicant by submitting that son of the informant has been brutally killed by the driver of the vehicle, namely, Sunil Verma and the present appellant/ applicant had assaulted him through Iron rod before the deceased was run over by the vehicle.

10. On being confronted learned Additional Government Advocate as to why the specific allegation has not been levelled against anyone in the F.I.R. when the parties were known to each other and the eye witness has allegedly told the father of the deceased about the fact, Sri Singh has stated that all these aspects may be addressed to the Court at the time of final hearing of the appeal.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, without entering into merits of the appeal, considering the fact that the present appellant /applicant remained on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail; in the F.I.R. the present appellant/ applicant is not named nor any allegation has been levelled against him despite the fact that he was known to the father of the deceased as well as to the eye witness; he was not driving the vehicle in question; although the prosecution claims the present case to be based on ocular witnesses, however the name of eye witness has not been indicated in the F.I.R. which creates suspicion and serious doubt on the prosecution story; there is no other criminal history of the present appellant/ applicant, the paper-book is not ready and the undertaking that the present appellant/ applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and as and when the paper-book is ready and the appeal is listed, he shall argue the appeal on merits without taking any unnecessary adjournment, we find it appropriate that the present appellant/ applicant may be released on bail.

12. Accordingly, the bail application is disposed of.

13. Let the present appellant/applicant (Mukesh Gupta), convict of the aforesaid session trial, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions. (i) The original copy of the bail bonds and sureties be transmitted to this Court to be kept on record after keeping its photocopy on record. 4 CRLA No. 3555 of 2024 (ii) So far as the amount of fine is concerned, the present appellant/applicant shall deposit 50% of the total fine amount within four weeks from the date of his release, however, the remaining 50% of the fine amount shall remain stayed. (iii) It is made clear that if the accused-appellant/applicant commits any offence during course of bail, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail. (iv) The present appellant/ applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. (Order on Appeal)

14. List this criminal appeal in the week commencing 23.02.2026 for hearing along with other connected appeal.

15. Office is directed to prepare the Paper-book at the earliest and copy thereof be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, as per rules. (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) December16,2025 Suresh/

1. Heard Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party on the application for bail. in an appeal filed by the first bail application

2. This appellant/applicant (Mukesh Gupta) against the judgement and order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (E.C. Act), Barabanki in Session Trial No.08 of 2019 (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Suneel Kumar Yadav and another) arising out of Case Crime No.306 of 2017, under Sections 302/34 I.P.C., Police Station-Fatehpur, District-Barabanki, whereby the present appellant/ applicant has been convicted and sentenced for maximum period of life imprisonment with fine stipulations, so far as it relates to the present appellant/ applicant (Mukesh Gupta).

3. Sri Nagendra Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant/applicant has stated that the present appellant/ applicant remained on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail. After conviction order dated 19.10.2024, he is in jail.

4. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. wherein it has been merely indicated by the informant, who is father of the deceased, that one Pick-up bearing No.UP-41/AT-3020 hit the Bike of son of the informant. The son of the informant protested of such rash and negligent driving leading to some altercation. Feeling offended, the Pick-up driver crashed the son of the informant and he died. 2 CRLA No. 3555 of 2024

5. At this stage, Sri Nagendra Mohan has drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of eye witness, wherein PW-2 (Dipak Verma) deposed before the court concerned that the Pick-up was being driven by one Sunil Kumar, co-convict. The role assigned to the present appellant was that when the co-convict, Sunil Kumar, the driver hit the Bike of son of the informant, it led to some altercation between the parties, whereupon allegedly the appellant/ applicant attacked the deceased. According to the said witness, the appellant/ applicant, therafter, exhorted the driver of the vehicle to run over the deceased.

6. It has been thus submitted by Sri Mohan that the role assigned to the present appellant/applicant is of hitting the deceased with Iron rod and of exhorting to run over. He submits that admittedly the appellant/applicant did not run over the deceased, due to which he died.

7. Sri Mohan has also stated that as per the said PW-2 (Dipak Verma) the accused persons were known to the eye witness, Dipak Verma, as well as to the father of the deceased, who later on lodged an F.I.R. on 20.09.2017 but in the entire F.I.R. no specific allegation has been levelled against the appellant/applicant or for that matter against any one although from a perusal of the F.I.R, it appears that this is a case of accident wherein the accused persons are not known to the informant. Moreover, the factum of hitting the deceased by the Iron rod has not even been indicated in the F.I.R and it is quite possible that the head injury might have been caused on account of incident.

8. Sri Nagendra Mohan has stated that the present case is highly motivated as there was some business rivalry between the family of the deceased and the present appellant/ applicant, therefore, the prosecution story has been developed having ulterior motive and extraneous design in the mind of the informant to frame the appellant/ applicant. He has further submitted that all these aspects may be argued at the time of final hearing of the appeal but so far as the bail application is concerned, the present appellant/ applicant has been falsely implicated and he has been convicted by the learned trial court on the basis of perverse findings. The present appellant/ applicant is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. He undertakes on behalf of the present appellant/ applicant that he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail order. He has also stated that the paper-book is not ready and direction may be issued to the office to prepare the Paper-book at the earliest as and when the appeal is listed he will argue the appeal on 3 CRLA No. 3555 of 2024 merits and will not take any unnecessary adjournment.

9. Per contra, Sri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate has vehemently opposed the bail application of the present appellant/ applicant by submitting that son of the informant has been brutally killed by the driver of the vehicle, namely, Sunil Verma and the present appellant/ applicant had assaulted him through Iron rod before the deceased was run over by the vehicle.

10. On being confronted learned Additional Government Advocate as to why the specific allegation has not been levelled against anyone in the F.I.R. when the parties were known to each other and the eye witness has allegedly told the father of the deceased about the fact, Sri Singh has stated that all these aspects may be addressed to the Court at the time of final hearing of the appeal.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, without entering into merits of the appeal, considering the fact that the present appellant /applicant remained on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail; in the F.I.R. the present appellant/ applicant is not named nor any allegation has been levelled against him despite the fact that he was known to the father of the deceased as well as to the eye witness; he was not driving the vehicle in question; although the prosecution claims the present case to be based on ocular witnesses, however the name of eye witness has not been indicated in the F.I.R. which creates suspicion and serious doubt on the prosecution story; there is no other criminal history of the present appellant/ applicant, the paper-book is not ready and the undertaking that the present appellant/ applicant will not misuse the liberty of bail and as and when the paper-book is ready and the appeal is listed, he shall argue the appeal on merits without taking any unnecessary adjournment, we find it appropriate that the present appellant/ applicant may be released on bail.

12. Accordingly, the bail application is disposed of.

13. Let the present appellant/applicant (Mukesh Gupta), convict of the aforesaid session trial, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions. (i) The original copy of the bail bonds and sureties be transmitted to this Court to be kept on record after keeping its photocopy on record. 4 CRLA No. 3555 of 2024 (ii) So far as the amount of fine is concerned, the present appellant/applicant shall deposit 50% of the total fine amount within four weeks from the date of his release, however, the remaining 50% of the fine amount shall remain stayed. (iii) It is made clear that if the accused-appellant/applicant commits any offence during course of bail, the prosecution will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail. (iv) The present appellant/ applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. (Order on Appeal)

14. List this criminal appeal in the week commencing 23.02.2026 for hearing along with other connected appeal.

15. Office is directed to prepare the Paper-book at the earliest and copy thereof be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties, as per rules. (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) December16,2025 Suresh/