High Court

1. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2/complainant despite names of Sri Shishir Pradhan, Advocate and Ms. Anamika Tiwari, Advocate have been shown in the cause list as counsel for the opposite party No. 2/complainant. Anneuxre No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed by the State also shows that the service of notice upon opposite party No. 2 is sufficient. Learned AGA is present in the Court.

2. Taking note of the aforesaid and also the earlier order of this Court dated 08.07.2025, which says 'It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned and case would be heard on merits, even in absence of learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2', the Court proceeded to hear the instant appeal, which relates to enlargement of appellant on bail, on merits.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 12.11.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 3332 of 2024, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 145 of 2024, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 504, 286, 341, 302, 120B I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)da, 3(1)dha, 3(2)V & 3(2)va of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

5. 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.

6. It is further stated that the FIR in issue i.e. FIR No. F.I.R./Case Crime No. 145 of 2024 was lodged by the informant/opposite party No. 2/Sukh Lal Saroj, who is not the eye-witness of the alleged incident/occurrence, on 03.05.2024 at Police Station- Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh against nine named persons namely Chandan Yadav, Arjun Saroj, Jangu, Tirath Yadav (appellant), Nishant Tiwari, Kedar Gupta, Sanjeet, Waqeel @ Anil & Pawan and some unknown persons making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 504, 286, 341, 302, 120B I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(V) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.

7. As per the case of prosecution, as indicated in FIR, the deceased/Rahul Saroj s/o complainant was assaulted by the appellant and co-accused Chandan.

8. It is further stated that, as per the case of prosecution, Alok Kumar Dhuria is the eye-witness of the incident and a perusal of statement of this witness would indicate that co-accused/Chandan Yadav assaulted the deceased with axe.

9. It is further stated that taking note of the entire facts of the including the statement of eye-witness, co-accused persons namely Nishant Tiwari @ Devendra Tiwari, Pawan Saroj, Sanjeet and Waqeel @ Anil have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 13.11.2024, 23.01.2025, 23.01.2025 and 23.01.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3164 of 2024, 3715 of 2024, 3708 of 2024 and 3718 of 2024. Copies of bail orders of these co- accused persons have been placed before this Court which are taken on record. In these circumstances, the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail, who is having no criminal history and languishing in jail since, 18.10.2023, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

10. 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.

11. 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 the statement of eye-witness and also that co-accused have 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.

12. Order dated 12.11.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 3332 of 2024, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 145 of 2024, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 504, 286, 341, 302, 120B I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)da, 3(1)dha, 3(2)V & 3(2)va of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh, is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant- Tirath Raj Yadav 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.

14. 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.

15. 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 :- 16.7.2025 Arun/-

1. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the opposite party No. 2/complainant despite names of Sri Shishir Pradhan, Advocate and Ms. Anamika Tiwari, Advocate have been shown in the cause list as counsel for the opposite party No. 2/complainant. Anneuxre No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed by the State also shows that the service of notice upon opposite party No. 2 is sufficient. Learned AGA is present in the Court.

2. Taking note of the aforesaid and also the earlier order of this Court dated 08.07.2025, which says 'It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned and case would be heard on merits, even in absence of learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2', the Court proceeded to hear the instant appeal, which relates to enlargement of appellant on bail, on merits.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 12.11.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 3332 of 2024, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 145 of 2024, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 504, 286, 341, 302, 120B I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)da, 3(1)dha, 3(2)V & 3(2)va of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

5. 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.

6. It is further stated that the FIR in issue i.e. FIR No. F.I.R./Case Crime No. 145 of 2024 was lodged by the informant/opposite party No. 2/Sukh Lal Saroj, who is not the eye-witness of the alleged incident/occurrence, on 03.05.2024 at Police Station- Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh against nine named persons namely Chandan Yadav, Arjun Saroj, Jangu, Tirath Yadav (appellant), Nishant Tiwari, Kedar Gupta, Sanjeet, Waqeel @ Anil & Pawan and some unknown persons making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 504, 286, 341, 302, 120B I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(V) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.

7. As per the case of prosecution, as indicated in FIR, the deceased/Rahul Saroj s/o complainant was assaulted by the appellant and co-accused Chandan.

8. It is further stated that, as per the case of prosecution, Alok Kumar Dhuria is the eye-witness of the incident and a perusal of statement of this witness would indicate that co-accused/Chandan Yadav assaulted the deceased with axe.

9. It is further stated that taking note of the entire facts of the including the statement of eye-witness, co-accused persons namely Nishant Tiwari @ Devendra Tiwari, Pawan Saroj, Sanjeet and Waqeel @ Anil have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 13.11.2024, 23.01.2025, 23.01.2025 and 23.01.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3164 of 2024, 3715 of 2024, 3708 of 2024 and 3718 of 2024. Copies of bail orders of these co- accused persons have been placed before this Court which are taken on record. In these circumstances, the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail, who is having no criminal history and languishing in jail since, 18.10.2023, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

10. 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.

11. 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 the statement of eye-witness and also that co-accused have 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.

12. Order dated 12.11.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 3332 of 2024, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 145 of 2024, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 504, 286, 341, 302, 120B I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)da, 3(1)dha, 3(2)V & 3(2)va of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh, is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant- Tirath Raj Yadav 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.

14. 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.

15. 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 :- 16.7.2025 Arun/-