State of U.P. and Another v. Counsel for

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

2. Learned AGA states that notice has been served on respondent no. 2, however, none has appeared on behalf of said respondent to oppose the appeal.

3. 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 a prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 1.11.2022 passed by District and Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ramabai Nagar/Kanpur Dehat and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 113 of 2021, under section 302 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste -and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station- Shivali, District- Kanpur Dehat.

4. As per prosecution story, an FIR was lodged by Chowkidar of the village who informed that dead body of a person aged about 40 years was lying outside the village. Dead body was recovered by the police. Inquest was prepared and thereafter postmortem was also conducted. As the dead body remained unidentified, publication in newspapers were made by the police. Thereafter, the wife of the deceased came before the police and identified the deceased by looking at the photograph of the dead body. She then stated that deceased Kailash Nath was her husband and was 2 CRLA No. 3486 of 2025 doing labour work. Her husband was also involved in arranging marriages of those unmarried persons who were unable to find a suitable bride. Even marriage of Shiv Narayan Pal was arranged by her husband, but later on it came to the knowledge of Shiv Narayan that his bride was a transgender. Therefore, accused Shiv Narayan was bearing animosity towards her husband. She further stated that on 13.3.2021, her husband had gone to do his labour work and at about 5:00 p.m., Shiv Narayan and Raghuveer took him on a motorcycle. Later on, Suraj and Anil also witnessed them going on the motorcycle. On 14.3.2021, she came to know that dead body of her husband was lying outside the village and when she tried to contact with Shiv Narayan, his mobile was switched off and he was not at his home.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that motive imputed against the appellant is not of such nature which could impel the appellant to commit murder of the deceased. Moreover, trial in this case has commenced and nearly eight witnesses have been cross-examined by the prosecution. However, the wife of the deceased has yet not appeared before the trial court for recording of her statement. Due to non- appearance of deceased's wife, trial is still pending and appellant is in jail since March 2021. It was submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. In such circumstances, the appellant is entitled to bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. has strongly opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that motive imputed by the wife of the deceased clearly establishes that none other than the appellant could have murdered the deceased. Moreover, witnesses Suraj and Anil, who had seen the deceased on 13.3.2021 with appellant and another person Raghuveer, have also supported the prosecution story. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 16.3.2021 and its report suggests that death has occurred 3 - 4 days before the occurrence. Said fact also establishes that deceased was murdered by the appellant and his companion at the time he was accompanying them. It was further stated that the brick which was used to assault the deceased was also recovered at the instance of the appellant and it was sent for forensic examination. The report of FSL also establishes that human blood was found on the brick. Therefore, the role 3 CRLA No. 3486 of 2025 of appellant in committing the murder of deceased cannot be ruled out. 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and after considering the fact that appellant is languishing in jail since March 2021, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

10. Let the appellant- Shiv Narayan Pal involved in the aforesaid case 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.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the 4 CRLA No. 3486 of 2025 accused or to cancel the bail granted. October 9, 2025 SK (Anil Kumar-X,J.) SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

2. Learned AGA states that notice has been served on respondent no. 2, however, none has appeared on behalf of said respondent to oppose the appeal.

3. 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 a prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 1.11.2022 passed by District and Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ramabai Nagar/Kanpur Dehat and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 113 of 2021, under section 302 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Caste -and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station- Shivali, District- Kanpur Dehat.

4. As per prosecution story, an FIR was lodged by Chowkidar of the village who informed that dead body of a person aged about 40 years was lying outside the village. Dead body was recovered by the police. Inquest was prepared and thereafter postmortem was also conducted. As the dead body remained unidentified, publication in newspapers were made by the police. Thereafter, the wife of the deceased came before the police and identified the deceased by looking at the photograph of the dead body. She then stated that deceased Kailash Nath was her husband and was 2 CRLA No. 3486 of 2025 doing labour work. Her husband was also involved in arranging marriages of those unmarried persons who were unable to find a suitable bride. Even marriage of Shiv Narayan Pal was arranged by her husband, but later on it came to the knowledge of Shiv Narayan that his bride was a transgender. Therefore, accused Shiv Narayan was bearing animosity towards her husband. She further stated that on 13.3.2021, her husband had gone to do his labour work and at about 5:00 p.m., Shiv Narayan and Raghuveer took him on a motorcycle. Later on, Suraj and Anil also witnessed them going on the motorcycle. On 14.3.2021, she came to know that dead body of her husband was lying outside the village and when she tried to contact with Shiv Narayan, his mobile was switched off and he was not at his home.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that motive imputed against the appellant is not of such nature which could impel the appellant to commit murder of the deceased. Moreover, trial in this case has commenced and nearly eight witnesses have been cross-examined by the prosecution. However, the wife of the deceased has yet not appeared before the trial court for recording of her statement. Due to non- appearance of deceased's wife, trial is still pending and appellant is in jail since March 2021. It was submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. In such circumstances, the appellant is entitled to bail.

6. Learned A.G.A. has strongly opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that motive imputed by the wife of the deceased clearly establishes that none other than the appellant could have murdered the deceased. Moreover, witnesses Suraj and Anil, who had seen the deceased on 13.3.2021 with appellant and another person Raghuveer, have also supported the prosecution story. Postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 16.3.2021 and its report suggests that death has occurred 3 - 4 days before the occurrence. Said fact also establishes that deceased was murdered by the appellant and his companion at the time he was accompanying them. It was further stated that the brick which was used to assault the deceased was also recovered at the instance of the appellant and it was sent for forensic examination. The report of FSL also establishes that human blood was found on the brick. Therefore, the role 3 CRLA No. 3486 of 2025 of appellant in committing the murder of deceased cannot be ruled out. 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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and after considering the fact that appellant is languishing in jail since March 2021, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

10. Let the appellant- Shiv Narayan Pal involved in the aforesaid case 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.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the 4 CRLA No. 3486 of 2025 accused or to cancel the bail granted. October 9, 2025 SK (Anil Kumar-X,J.) SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad