State of U.P. and Another v. Counsel for
Case Details
1. Heard learned counsel for appellants, 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 appellants-Ajay Singh ( in Criminal Appeal No.6238 of 2025) and Vinay Singh and Sonu Singh @ Sanjay Singh (in Criminal Appeal No.6280 of 2025) with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 03.07.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge Court No.15/Special Judge (S.C./S.T Act), Prayagraj, arising out of Case Crime No.126 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 103(2), 352, 351(3), 238, 3(5) B.N.S. & 3(1) (Da) (Dha) & 3(2) (5) S.C/S.T Act, at Police Station Karchhana, District Prayagraj.
3. Informant-Ashok Kumar lodged an FIR on 13.4.2025 against seven accused persons and some unknown. He stated therein that accused Dilip Singh @ Chottan called his son Devi Shankar at his house for some agricultural labour. In the morning, at about 5:30 AM, informant came to know that his son Devi Shankar was murdered by Dilip Singh @ Chottan, Ajay Singh, Vinay Singh, Manoj Singh, Sonu Singh @ Sanjay Singh, Shekar Singh and Mohit who set him ablaze.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that prosecution story rests solely on circumstantial evidence. Informant-Ashok Kumar himself stated before Investigating Officer that appellants Ajay Singh and Vinay Singh himself informed the daughter of informant on mobile phone that dead 2 CRLA No. 6238 of 2025 body of deceased is lying in their orchard. Two other witnesses were interrogated by police who stated that they heard the conversation of accused persons and deceased at about 11:30 PM in the night of 12.4.2025. They have stated that all accused persons and deceased were present in the orchard of appellant but their conversation was not audible to these witness. It was further submitted by learned counsel for appellants that the statement of informant itself demonstrates that appellant had himself informed the informant's daughter about the dead body of deceased which was lying in their orchard. Statement of other witnesses, namely, Sivam Kumar and Sarthka who have allegedly seen the deceased and accused persons talking in the orchard of appellant does not suggest that appellants and other accused persons have committed murder of deceased Devi Sankar. Hence, the appellants are entitled to bail.
5. Learned AGA for State and Sri Kamlesh Prasad, learned counsel for informant have opposed the aforesaid prayer of the learned counsel for appellants and has submitted that name of informant has been mentioned in the FIR and the said FIR was lodged without any delay. Hence, the chance of false implication cannot be assumed. Moreover, the testimony of Shivam Kumar and Sarthka is sufficient to indicate that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of appellants and accused persons. Even these witnesses have also stated that all of them was present in the orchard of appellant and dead body was also found in the same orchard belonging to the appellants. Statement of informant that deceased was called by appellants at his orchard for some labor work coupled with the statement of other witnesses who had seen the deceased and accused together in the orchard are sufficient to establish the complicity of appellant in the alleged murder. Hence, appellants are not entitled to bail.
6. I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record.
7. Statements of informant-Ashok Kumar, Shivam Kumar and Sarthak, if read, in totality suggest that deceased was called by appellant at their orchard for some agricultural labour and,later on, his dead body was found in the orchard of appellant. The witnesses of last seen only suggest that deceased and other accused were present in the orchard. Nothing apart from the presence of deceased and the appellants and other accused in the orchard 3 CRLA No. 6238 of 2025 of the appellants can be deduced from the statement of above witnesses.
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, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail.
9. Accordingly, the appeals are is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants are set-aside.
10. Let the appellants- Ajay Singh, Vinay Singh and Sonu Singh @ Sanjay Singh involved in Case Crime No.126 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 103(2), 352, 351(3), 238, 3(5) B.N.S. & 3(1) (Da) (Dha) & 3(2) (5) S.C/S.T Act, at Police Station Karchhana, District Prayagraj, 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 appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellants 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 appellants 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 concerned Court shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted. October 27, 2025 Mukesh (Anil Kumar-X,J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for appellants, 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 appellants-Ajay Singh ( in Criminal Appeal No.6238 of 2025) and Vinay Singh and Sonu Singh @ Sanjay Singh (in Criminal Appeal No.6280 of 2025) with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 03.07.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge Court No.15/Special Judge (S.C./S.T Act), Prayagraj, arising out of Case Crime No.126 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 103(2), 352, 351(3), 238, 3(5) B.N.S. & 3(1) (Da) (Dha) & 3(2) (5) S.C/S.T Act, at Police Station Karchhana, District Prayagraj.
3. Informant-Ashok Kumar lodged an FIR on 13.4.2025 against seven accused persons and some unknown. He stated therein that accused Dilip Singh @ Chottan called his son Devi Shankar at his house for some agricultural labour. In the morning, at about 5:30 AM, informant came to know that his son Devi Shankar was murdered by Dilip Singh @ Chottan, Ajay Singh, Vinay Singh, Manoj Singh, Sonu Singh @ Sanjay Singh, Shekar Singh and Mohit who set him ablaze.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that prosecution story rests solely on circumstantial evidence. Informant-Ashok Kumar himself stated before Investigating Officer that appellants Ajay Singh and Vinay Singh himself informed the daughter of informant on mobile phone that dead 2 CRLA No. 6238 of 2025 body of deceased is lying in their orchard. Two other witnesses were interrogated by police who stated that they heard the conversation of accused persons and deceased at about 11:30 PM in the night of 12.4.2025. They have stated that all accused persons and deceased were present in the orchard of appellant but their conversation was not audible to these witness. It was further submitted by learned counsel for appellants that the statement of informant itself demonstrates that appellant had himself informed the informant's daughter about the dead body of deceased which was lying in their orchard. Statement of other witnesses, namely, Sivam Kumar and Sarthka who have allegedly seen the deceased and accused persons talking in the orchard of appellant does not suggest that appellants and other accused persons have committed murder of deceased Devi Sankar. Hence, the appellants are entitled to bail.
5. Learned AGA for State and Sri Kamlesh Prasad, learned counsel for informant have opposed the aforesaid prayer of the learned counsel for appellants and has submitted that name of informant has been mentioned in the FIR and the said FIR was lodged without any delay. Hence, the chance of false implication cannot be assumed. Moreover, the testimony of Shivam Kumar and Sarthka is sufficient to indicate that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of appellants and accused persons. Even these witnesses have also stated that all of them was present in the orchard of appellant and dead body was also found in the same orchard belonging to the appellants. Statement of informant that deceased was called by appellants at his orchard for some labor work coupled with the statement of other witnesses who had seen the deceased and accused together in the orchard are sufficient to establish the complicity of appellant in the alleged murder. Hence, appellants are not entitled to bail.
6. I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record.
7. Statements of informant-Ashok Kumar, Shivam Kumar and Sarthak, if read, in totality suggest that deceased was called by appellant at their orchard for some agricultural labour and,later on, his dead body was found in the orchard of appellant. The witnesses of last seen only suggest that deceased and other accused were present in the orchard. Nothing apart from the presence of deceased and the appellants and other accused in the orchard 3 CRLA No. 6238 of 2025 of the appellants can be deduced from the statement of above witnesses.
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, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail.
9. Accordingly, the appeals are is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants are set-aside.
10. Let the appellants- Ajay Singh, Vinay Singh and Sonu Singh @ Sanjay Singh involved in Case Crime No.126 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 103(2), 352, 351(3), 238, 3(5) B.N.S. & 3(1) (Da) (Dha) & 3(2) (5) S.C/S.T Act, at Police Station Karchhana, District Prayagraj, 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 appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellants 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 appellants 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 concerned Court shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted. October 27, 2025 Mukesh (Anil Kumar-X,J.)