Allahabad High Court

1. Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned counsel for informant and the learned AGA for State.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 12.08.2025, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Mau arising out of Case Crime No. 0196/2025, under sections 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 352, 351(2) Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station -Saraylakhansi, District - Mau.

3. Informant-Kamlesh Ram lodged an FIR on 12.5.2025 alleging that his brother Akhilesh Kumar Madhuban was returning from the marriage ceremony on 11.5.2025. Appellant and four other accused persons came out midway from the hideout and assaulted his brother severally. His brother has suffered serious injuries and became unconscious on the spot and thereafter he was sent to hospital and was admitted in ICU.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that informant himself has not witnessed the incident. FIR was lodged on 12.5.2025 and the observation of Investigating Officer is relevant in this respect. Investigating Officer has mentioned that he had gone to Prakash Hospital where injured was admitted in ICU. But he could not record the statement because he was unable to speak. He has further submitted that statement of injured was recorded by Investigating Officer and he stated that Arjun Gupta is his friend. At the time of occurrence, Arjun Gupta was also with him. He has further stated that when Investigating Officer asked the injured as to why the 2 CRLA No. 7977 of 2025 appellant had assaulted him, injured after keeping silence for sometime told him that he has no enmity with accused person. However, some time ago, some hot talk between Arjun Gupta and appellant took place on phone. Both of them abused each other and during the course, injured also abused the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that other eyewitness who has been mentioned by informant is Arjun Gupta. But that Arjun Gupta has not been interrogated by Investigating Officer and was not mentioned as an eye witness in the charge sheet . If statement of injured is accepted on its face value then the only conclusion which can be made is that enmity, if any, was only between Arjun Gupta and appellant. In the given circumstances, there was no reason as to why the appellant and other accused person will assault the injured by sparing the main enemy Arjun Gupta. Learned counsel submitted that the manner in which informant has disclosed the enmity in the FIR also caused serious dent in the prosecution story. Informant was neither present on the spot nor had witnessed the incident. The initial observation of Investigating Officer suggests that informant could not have gotten the details from injured who was in an unconscious state. The aforementioned circumstances clearly show that the appellant and other accused have been falsely implicated for the offence which was not committed by them. Hence, the appellant is entitled for bail.

6. Sri Dinesh Kumar Rai, learned AGA for State and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for informant have opposed the aforesaid prayer of the learned counsel for appellant and have submitted that even after the statement of Arjun Gupta was not recorded by Investigating Officer, then also the statement of injured is sufficient to establish the role of appellant who has caused serious injuries upon the person of the injured. Injured was so serious after the assault that he had undergone treatment for several days and was also admitted in ICU. Hence, the appellant is not entitled for bail.

7. I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record.

8. Argument raised by learned counsel for appellant is prima facie appears to be relevant. It appears that the enmity, if any, was between appellant and Arjun Gupta, who is friend of injured. It is a lapse on the part of Investigating Officer for not recording the statement of eye witness Arjun 3 CRLA No. 7977 of 2025 Gupta.

9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

11. Let the appellant- Aditya Singh Alias Golu involved in Case Crime No. 0196/2025, under sections 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 352, 351(2) Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Saraylakhansi, District - Mau, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (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.

12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the concerned Court shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted. November 18, 2025 Mukesh (Anil Kumar-X,J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned counsel for informant and the learned AGA for State.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 12.08.2025, passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Mau arising out of Case Crime No. 0196/2025, under sections 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 352, 351(2) Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station -Saraylakhansi, District - Mau.

3. Informant-Kamlesh Ram lodged an FIR on 12.5.2025 alleging that his brother Akhilesh Kumar Madhuban was returning from the marriage ceremony on 11.5.2025. Appellant and four other accused persons came out midway from the hideout and assaulted his brother severally. His brother has suffered serious injuries and became unconscious on the spot and thereafter he was sent to hospital and was admitted in ICU.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that informant himself has not witnessed the incident. FIR was lodged on 12.5.2025 and the observation of Investigating Officer is relevant in this respect. Investigating Officer has mentioned that he had gone to Prakash Hospital where injured was admitted in ICU. But he could not record the statement because he was unable to speak. He has further submitted that statement of injured was recorded by Investigating Officer and he stated that Arjun Gupta is his friend. At the time of occurrence, Arjun Gupta was also with him. He has further stated that when Investigating Officer asked the injured as to why the 2 CRLA No. 7977 of 2025 appellant had assaulted him, injured after keeping silence for sometime told him that he has no enmity with accused person. However, some time ago, some hot talk between Arjun Gupta and appellant took place on phone. Both of them abused each other and during the course, injured also abused the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that other eyewitness who has been mentioned by informant is Arjun Gupta. But that Arjun Gupta has not been interrogated by Investigating Officer and was not mentioned as an eye witness in the charge sheet . If statement of injured is accepted on its face value then the only conclusion which can be made is that enmity, if any, was only between Arjun Gupta and appellant. In the given circumstances, there was no reason as to why the appellant and other accused person will assault the injured by sparing the main enemy Arjun Gupta. Learned counsel submitted that the manner in which informant has disclosed the enmity in the FIR also caused serious dent in the prosecution story. Informant was neither present on the spot nor had witnessed the incident. The initial observation of Investigating Officer suggests that informant could not have gotten the details from injured who was in an unconscious state. The aforementioned circumstances clearly show that the appellant and other accused have been falsely implicated for the offence which was not committed by them. Hence, the appellant is entitled for bail.

6. Sri Dinesh Kumar Rai, learned AGA for State and Sri Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for informant have opposed the aforesaid prayer of the learned counsel for appellant and have submitted that even after the statement of Arjun Gupta was not recorded by Investigating Officer, then also the statement of injured is sufficient to establish the role of appellant who has caused serious injuries upon the person of the injured. Injured was so serious after the assault that he had undergone treatment for several days and was also admitted in ICU. Hence, the appellant is not entitled for bail.

7. I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record.

8. Argument raised by learned counsel for appellant is prima facie appears to be relevant. It appears that the enmity, if any, was between appellant and Arjun Gupta, who is friend of injured. It is a lapse on the part of Investigating Officer for not recording the statement of eye witness Arjun 3 CRLA No. 7977 of 2025 Gupta.

9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

11. Let the appellant- Aditya Singh Alias Golu involved in Case Crime No. 0196/2025, under sections 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 352, 351(2) Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Saraylakhansi, District - Mau, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (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.

12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the concerned Court shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted. November 18, 2025 Mukesh (Anil Kumar-X,J.)