High Court · 2025

3. It would be apt to indicate that after office report dated 10.02.2025, the matter was taken up on 19.02.2025, 21.03.2025, 10.04.2025, 31.07.2025 and 04.08.2025 on which this court fixed the case for 06.08.2025, i.e. for today. In the aforesaid background, this court proceeded to decide the case on merits with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

5. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No.3464 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.0204/2024, under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 352, 351 (3), 105 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023 and Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Safipur, District - Unnao.

6. While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

7. He further stated that according to the F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party No.2/informant all the accused persons namely Raj Kumar @ Bauva, Shailendra Yadav and Dhirendra Yadav assaulted the deceased with lathi and these accused persons also assaulted the informant. Thus, to all the accused persons general role has been assigned. In the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer the informant/opposite party No.2 has assigned the role to the present applicant, thus, there is an improvement in the basic story of the prosecution. It is also submitted that the informant/opposite party No.2 is not an eye witness for the reason that according to the F.I.R. she sustained some injuries but the prosecution in support of the said allegation has not filed any medical evidence in this regard. At this stage, on being asked learned A.G.A., based upon the affidavit on record, could not dispute this aspect of the case. It is next submitted that a perusal of the statement of the eye witness Chandrawati, annexed as Annexure No.10 to the present appeal would indicate that the appellant and co-accused Dhirendra Yadav assaulted the deceased. It is also submitted that co-accused Dhirendra Yadav has already been released on bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.3752 of 2024. In these circumstances, the appellant who is languishing in jail since 02.08.2024 is also entitled to be released on bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

8. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel as also the fact the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.

9. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and the bail order of co-accused.

10. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances particularly that co-accused has already been released on bail and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

11. Order dated 30.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No.3464 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.0204/2024, under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 352, 351 (3), 105 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023 and Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Safipur, District - Unnao is hereby set aside.

12. Let the appellant - Rajkumar alias Bauva Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions :- (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. (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.

13. In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

14. 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. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 ML/- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. It would be apt to indicate that after office report dated 10.02.2025, the matter was taken up on 19.02.2025, 21.03.2025, 10.04.2025, 31.07.2025 and 04.08.2025 on which this court fixed the case for 06.08.2025, i.e. for today. In the aforesaid background, this court proceeded to decide the case on merits with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

5. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 30.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No.3464 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.0204/2024, under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 352, 351 (3), 105 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023 and Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Safipur, District - Unnao.

6. While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

7. He further stated that according to the F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party No.2/informant all the accused persons namely Raj Kumar @ Bauva, Shailendra Yadav and Dhirendra Yadav assaulted the deceased with lathi and these accused persons also assaulted the informant. Thus, to all the accused persons general role has been assigned. In the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer the informant/opposite party No.2 has assigned the role to the present applicant, thus, there is an improvement in the basic story of the prosecution. It is also submitted that the informant/opposite party No.2 is not an eye witness for the reason that according to the F.I.R. she sustained some injuries but the prosecution in support of the said allegation has not filed any medical evidence in this regard. At this stage, on being asked learned A.G.A., based upon the affidavit on record, could not dispute this aspect of the case. It is next submitted that a perusal of the statement of the eye witness Chandrawati, annexed as Annexure No.10 to the present appeal would indicate that the appellant and co-accused Dhirendra Yadav assaulted the deceased. It is also submitted that co-accused Dhirendra Yadav has already been released on bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.3752 of 2024. In these circumstances, the appellant who is languishing in jail since 02.08.2024 is also entitled to be released on bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

8. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel as also the fact the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.

9. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and the bail order of co-accused.

10. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances particularly that co-accused has already been released on bail and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

11. Order dated 30.11.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No.3464 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.0204/2024, under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 352, 351 (3), 105 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023 and Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Safipur, District - Unnao is hereby set aside.

12. Let the appellant - Rajkumar alias Bauva Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions :- (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. (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.

13. In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

14. 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. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 ML/- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench