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

perused the record. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is also present.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Maharajganj in Second Bail Application No. 1414 of 2024, arising out of Special Sessions Trail No. 354 of 2024, having Case Crime No. 26 of 2024, under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(da)(dha) and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District Maharajganj.

3. The first Criminal Appeal against the first Bail Rejection order dated 21.03.2024 has been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 11.09.2024.

4. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 15.01.2024 at about 8:00 PM, the victim, sister of complainant Preeti Paswan, was attacked by the appellant while returning home. The allegation is that the appellant called her near Balia Nala behind fish market and thereafter assaulted her with a knife-like weapon, causing severe injuries on her head, legs and hands. It is further alleged that during the assault, the appellant hurled abuses and caste-related slurs at the victim. The FIR was lodged by the complainant/sister of the victim.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is argued that there was a delay of nearly four hours in lodging the FIR, though the police station is only about one kilometer from the spot. No clear motive for the crime has been disclosed. The alleged incident took place at a public place, yet no independent eyewitness has been produced. The FIR was not lodged by the victim herself but by her sister. During cross-examination, the complainant admitted that it was dark at the place of occurrence and the victim could 2 CRLA No. 12446 of 2024 not identify the exact weapon used. The medical report also does not show any stab injuries, which contradicts the allegation of repeated knife blows. It is further submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and has been in custody since

16.01.2024. The charge sheet has already been filed, and trial is now proceeding for evidence; hence, further custodial detention of the appellant is not warranted.

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the appeal, contending that the allegations are grave and serious. The victim suffered injuries on her head and hands and caste-based abuses were hurled at her. It is, therefore, argued that the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.

7. The Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The material does indicate that the victim suffered injuries; however, there exist material inconsistencies regarding the weapon of assault. The medical evidence does not corroborate the allegation of repeated knife blows, as no stab wounds have been found. Further, the FIR was lodged with a delay of several hours without any adequate explanation. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant has no previous criminal history.

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 appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

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

10. Let the appellant Shashi @ Ramkali involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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 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. 3 CRLA No. 12446 of 2024 (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.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before the competent Court.

12. 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. September 10, 2025 RavindraKSingh (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

perused the record. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is also present.

2. This criminal appeal has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for setting aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Maharajganj in Second Bail Application No. 1414 of 2024, arising out of Special Sessions Trail No. 354 of 2024, having Case Crime No. 26 of 2024, under Sections 307, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(da)(dha) and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District Maharajganj.

3. The first Criminal Appeal against the first Bail Rejection order dated 21.03.2024 has been dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 11.09.2024.

4. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 15.01.2024 at about 8:00 PM, the victim, sister of complainant Preeti Paswan, was attacked by the appellant while returning home. The allegation is that the appellant called her near Balia Nala behind fish market and thereafter assaulted her with a knife-like weapon, causing severe injuries on her head, legs and hands. It is further alleged that during the assault, the appellant hurled abuses and caste-related slurs at the victim. The FIR was lodged by the complainant/sister of the victim.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is argued that there was a delay of nearly four hours in lodging the FIR, though the police station is only about one kilometer from the spot. No clear motive for the crime has been disclosed. The alleged incident took place at a public place, yet no independent eyewitness has been produced. The FIR was not lodged by the victim herself but by her sister. During cross-examination, the complainant admitted that it was dark at the place of occurrence and the victim could 2 CRLA No. 12446 of 2024 not identify the exact weapon used. The medical report also does not show any stab injuries, which contradicts the allegation of repeated knife blows. It is further submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedents and has been in custody since

16.01.2024. The charge sheet has already been filed, and trial is now proceeding for evidence; hence, further custodial detention of the appellant is not warranted.

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the appeal, contending that the allegations are grave and serious. The victim suffered injuries on her head and hands and caste-based abuses were hurled at her. It is, therefore, argued that the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.

7. The Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The material does indicate that the victim suffered injuries; however, there exist material inconsistencies regarding the weapon of assault. The medical evidence does not corroborate the allegation of repeated knife blows, as no stab wounds have been found. Further, the FIR was lodged with a delay of several hours without any adequate explanation. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant has no previous criminal history.

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 appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

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

10. Let the appellant Shashi @ Ramkali involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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 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. 3 CRLA No. 12446 of 2024 (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.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before the competent Court.

12. 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. September 10, 2025 RavindraKSingh (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad