High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Suresh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short "Act of 1989") against the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kheri in Bail Application No. 519 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 336 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 427, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "I.P.C.") and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(2)(dha), 3(2)(v) of Act of 1989, P.S. Bheera, District - Lakhimpur Kheri.

3. For the purposes of deciding the present appeal, this Court considered the following facts and aspects of the case. (i) An FIR No. 0336 was lodged at PS - Bheera, District - Kheri which indicates that on forged death certificate of the informant, according to which informant expired on 20.05.2014, in mutation proceedings an order was obtained and in compliance thereof the names of Asharani W/o Chetram (co- accused), Maltidevi W/o Ramgopal and Bablesh W/o Ramniwas were entered in the revenue records of the land of which the informant is the owner i.e. Gata No. 474/0.995 hects. and Gata No.25/0.101 hects. situated at Village-Shahpur, Pargana- Bhood, Tehsil - Palia, District - Kheri. (ii) Based upon the entry in the revenue record, co-accused Asharani, Maltidevi and Bablesh took loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from Union Bank, Paliya Khera, District - Kheri. (iii) According to the FIR, the appellant hurled abused, on being opposed, by the informant with regard to tilling land of the informant and he also states that he is tilling land on the instructions of the co-accused Asharani. (iv) According to the statement of co-accused as also the prosecution's case, the appellant in fact is author of crime in relation to obtaining/managing the forged death certificate and he is also the beneficiary.

4. In the aforesaid background of the case, pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant is in jail since 03.12.2024 and accordingly the period of incarceration is around nine months.

5. It is further submitted that the possibility of the conclusion of the trial in the near future is extremely bleak.

6. Further submission is that the statement of the co-accused cannot be relied upon for the purposes of the conviction of the appellant.

7. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the prosecution case would indicate that the appellant is not a beneficiary as according to co-accused the appellant is a beneficiary.

8. Thus, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. As such, appellant, who is in jail since 03.12.2024 and has criminal history of six cases under Excise Act which have been explained in paragraph 15 of the rejoinder affidavit, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

9. Learned A.G.A. and Shri Suresh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

10. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, as well as statement of the witnesses.

11. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the statement of the co-accused as also the period of incarceration and also the CD No. 17, and also 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.

12. The impugned order dated 06.01.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kheri in Bail Application No. 519 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 336 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(2) (dha), 3(2)(v) of Act of 1989, P.S. Bheera, District - Lakhimpur Kheri is set aside.

13. Let appellant - Santosh Kumar Rathore, 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.

14. 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

15. 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 :- 13.8.2025 Mohit Singh/- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Suresh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short "Act of 1989") against the impugned order dated 06.01.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kheri in Bail Application No. 519 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 336 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 427, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "I.P.C.") and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(2)(dha), 3(2)(v) of Act of 1989, P.S. Bheera, District - Lakhimpur Kheri.

3. For the purposes of deciding the present appeal, this Court considered the following facts and aspects of the case. (i) An FIR No. 0336 was lodged at PS - Bheera, District - Kheri which indicates that on forged death certificate of the informant, according to which informant expired on 20.05.2014, in mutation proceedings an order was obtained and in compliance thereof the names of Asharani W/o Chetram (co- accused), Maltidevi W/o Ramgopal and Bablesh W/o Ramniwas were entered in the revenue records of the land of which the informant is the owner i.e. Gata No. 474/0.995 hects. and Gata No.25/0.101 hects. situated at Village-Shahpur, Pargana- Bhood, Tehsil - Palia, District - Kheri. (ii) Based upon the entry in the revenue record, co-accused Asharani, Maltidevi and Bablesh took loan of Rs.7,00,000/- from Union Bank, Paliya Khera, District - Kheri. (iii) According to the FIR, the appellant hurled abused, on being opposed, by the informant with regard to tilling land of the informant and he also states that he is tilling land on the instructions of the co-accused Asharani. (iv) According to the statement of co-accused as also the prosecution's case, the appellant in fact is author of crime in relation to obtaining/managing the forged death certificate and he is also the beneficiary.

4. In the aforesaid background of the case, pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant is in jail since 03.12.2024 and accordingly the period of incarceration is around nine months.

5. It is further submitted that the possibility of the conclusion of the trial in the near future is extremely bleak.

6. Further submission is that the statement of the co-accused cannot be relied upon for the purposes of the conviction of the appellant.

7. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the prosecution case would indicate that the appellant is not a beneficiary as according to co-accused the appellant is a beneficiary.

8. Thus, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. As such, appellant, who is in jail since 03.12.2024 and has criminal history of six cases under Excise Act which have been explained in paragraph 15 of the rejoinder affidavit, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

9. Learned A.G.A. and Shri Suresh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

10. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, as well as statement of the witnesses.

11. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the statement of the co-accused as also the period of incarceration and also the CD No. 17, and also 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.

12. The impugned order dated 06.01.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Kheri in Bail Application No. 519 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 336 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 427, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(2) (dha), 3(2)(v) of Act of 1989, P.S. Bheera, District - Lakhimpur Kheri is set aside.

13. Let appellant - Santosh Kumar Rathore, 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.

14. 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

15. 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 :- 13.8.2025 Mohit Singh/- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench