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

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

2. Learned AGA has informed the Court that notice has been served on opposite party no. 2, however, none has appeared on his behalf. 2 CRLA No. 7019 of 2025

3. These criminal appeals under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have been preferred by the appellants - Brijmohan Sharma, Monu @ Hemant Sharma and Amardeep Sharma with the prayer to allow the appeals, set aside the bail rejection order dated 05.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur, in Case Crime No.90 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 351(3), 3(5) BNS & Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Gola, District – Gorakhpur, bail rejection order dated 09.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur, in Case Crime No.90 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 351(3), 3(5) BNS , Section 4/25 Arms Act & Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Gola, District – Gorakhpur and bail rejection order dated 16.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur, in Case Crime No.90 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 351(3), 3(5) BNS, Section 4/25 Arms Act & Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Gola, District – Gorakhpur, respectively.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that FIR against 7 accused persons was lodged by the first informant and it is very much clear from his averments that no evidence except old enmity against seven accused persons has been made. Son of informant went missing on

07.03.2025 and his dead body was recovered on 08.03.2025. Informant has even not mentioned any details of the old enmity between informant and the accused persons. Recovery of knife was made at the instance of appellant- Amardeep Sharma. When statement of informant was recorded by Investigating Officer, he made a vague allegation against another appellant- Brijmohan Sharma by stating that he too was involved in the incident. Similarly name of another appellant- Monu @ Hemant Sharma who was not mentioned in the FIR, his name has been subsequently mentioned during the investigation on the basis of confession of co-accused Amardeep Sharma. There is no statement of any eyewitness who has seen the deceased with accused persons soon before the death of deceased. Apart from confession and recovery, no other evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer.

5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail and submitted that the deceased went missing from his home on 07.08.2025 in the evening and he was seen with all the accused persons in a marriage hall at about 11:00 p.m. in the night and their presence along with the deceased was captured in the CCTV 3 CRLA No. 7019 of 2025 footage. Hence, their presence along with the deceased cannot be ruled out.

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

7. Considering the fact that apart from alleged old enmity and some recovery, no evidence against appellants has been collected by the Investigating Officer. 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.

8. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants is set-aside.

9. Let the appellants - Brijmohan Sharma, Monu @ Hemant Sharma and Amardeep Sharma involved in Case Crime No.90 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 351(3), 3(5) BNS & Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Gola, District – Gorakhpur, Case Crime No.90 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 351(3), 3(5) BNS , Section 4/25 Arms Act & Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Gola, District – Gorakhpur and Case Crime No.90 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 351(3), 3(5) BNS, Section 4/25 Arms Act & Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Gola, District – Gorakhpur, respectively, be released on bail on their 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 they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are 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 4 CRLA No. 7019 of 2025 dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

10. 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 accused or to cancel the bail granted. October 10, 2025 R.S. Tiwari (Anil Kumar-X,J.) RAVI SHANKAR TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

2. Learned AGA has informed the Court that notice has been served on opposite party no. 2, however, none has appeared on his behalf. 2 CRLA No. 7019 of 2025

3. These criminal appeals under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have been preferred by the appellants - Brijmohan Sharma, Monu @ Hemant Sharma and Amardeep Sharma with the prayer to allow the appeals, set aside the bail rejection order dated 05.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur, in Case Crime No.90 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 351(3), 3(5) BNS & Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Gola, District – Gorakhpur, bail rejection order dated 09.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur, in Case Crime No.90 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 351(3), 3(5) BNS , Section 4/25 Arms Act & Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Gola, District – Gorakhpur and bail rejection order dated 16.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gorakhpur, in Case Crime No.90 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 351(3), 3(5) BNS, Section 4/25 Arms Act & Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Gola, District – Gorakhpur, respectively.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that FIR against 7 accused persons was lodged by the first informant and it is very much clear from his averments that no evidence except old enmity against seven accused persons has been made. Son of informant went missing on

07.03.2025 and his dead body was recovered on 08.03.2025. Informant has even not mentioned any details of the old enmity between informant and the accused persons. Recovery of knife was made at the instance of appellant- Amardeep Sharma. When statement of informant was recorded by Investigating Officer, he made a vague allegation against another appellant- Brijmohan Sharma by stating that he too was involved in the incident. Similarly name of another appellant- Monu @ Hemant Sharma who was not mentioned in the FIR, his name has been subsequently mentioned during the investigation on the basis of confession of co-accused Amardeep Sharma. There is no statement of any eyewitness who has seen the deceased with accused persons soon before the death of deceased. Apart from confession and recovery, no other evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer.

5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail and submitted that the deceased went missing from his home on 07.08.2025 in the evening and he was seen with all the accused persons in a marriage hall at about 11:00 p.m. in the night and their presence along with the deceased was captured in the CCTV 3 CRLA No. 7019 of 2025 footage. Hence, their presence along with the deceased cannot be ruled out.

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

7. Considering the fact that apart from alleged old enmity and some recovery, no evidence against appellants has been collected by the Investigating Officer. 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.

8. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants is set-aside.

9. Let the appellants - Brijmohan Sharma, Monu @ Hemant Sharma and Amardeep Sharma involved in Case Crime No.90 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 351(3), 3(5) BNS & Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Gola, District – Gorakhpur, Case Crime No.90 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 351(3), 3(5) BNS , Section 4/25 Arms Act & Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Gola, District – Gorakhpur and Case Crime No.90 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 238, 351(3), 3(5) BNS, Section 4/25 Arms Act & Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Gola, District – Gorakhpur, respectively, be released on bail on their 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 they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are 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 4 CRLA No. 7019 of 2025 dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

10. 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 accused or to cancel the bail granted. October 10, 2025 R.S. Tiwari (Anil Kumar-X,J.) RAVI SHANKAR TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad