Vishnu v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief. Secy

: Sudhanshu S. Tripathi, Anuj Dayal, Raghav Bansal, Ritwika Tripathi, Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Abhinav Srivastava Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Badrul Hasan, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Abhinav Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 21.12.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Faizabad/Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 2653 of 2024, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.233 of 2024, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 504, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station- Raunahi, District- Faizabad/Ayodhya.

3. Vide order dated 19.09.2025, this Court allowed the Criminal Appeal No. 3094 of 2024 filed by co-accused Suraj Gaud and enlarged the co-accused on bail. The relevant portion of the order dated 19.09.2025 reads as under: "4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 31.07.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Faizabad/Ayodhya in Bail Application (Computer Registration No.) No.1539 of 2024, "Suraj Gaud vs. State" arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.233 of 2024, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 504, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) Station- Raunahi, District- Faizabad/Ayodhya. SC/ST Act, Police

5. It has been submitted by counsel for the appellant that the appellant having no criminal history has been falsely implicated in the present case and is in jail since 09.05.2024 and in this view of the matter the period of incarceration comes to 1?2 years (one and half years).

6. It is further stated that in the FIR No.0233 dated 07.05.2024 lodged at Police Station- Raunahi, District- Faizabad/Ayodhya, in connection to which appellant is in jail since 09.05.2024, general allegations have been leveled against seven persons, including the appellant and same appears from the FIR itself and bare perusal of the same would also indicate that that the incident occurred without premeditation of mind on spur of moment and as such the case of the prosecution would ultimately fall for 2 CRLA No. 483 of 2025 the offence under Section 304 IPC and not for the offence under Section 302 IPC which was added after death of Arjun by deleting Section 308 IPC.

7. It is further stated that the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer annexed as Annexure No.7 to 9 would also indicate that the incident occurred without premeditation of mind.

8. Further, submission is that the co-accused, namely, Isha, Chinta Devi @ Leelawati and Shanti have already been released on bail vide orders dated 25.09.2024, 23.10.2024 and 23.10.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.2763 of 2024, 2958 of 2024 and 2772 of 2024, respectively.

9. It is also stated that main witnesses of the fact, namely, Ram Gopal has already been examined before the trial court and in this view of the matter, there is no possibility of the influencing the witnesses of the prosecution.

10. It is further submitted that the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely weak.

11. It is further submitted that appellant, having no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 09.05.2024, in these circumstances is entitled to be released on bail and therefore, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

12. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. However, he could not dispute the aforesaid facts including that the co- accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

13. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R. as also that co-accused persons, namely, Isha, Chinta Devi @ Leelawati and Shanti have already been released on bail vide orders dated 25.09.2024, 23.10.2024 and 23.10.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.2763 of 2024, 2958 of 2024 and 2772 of 2024, respectively as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation.

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

15. Order dated 31.07.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Faizabad/Ayodhya in Bail Application (Computer Registration No.) No. 1539 of 2024, "Suraj Gaud vs. State" arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.233 of 2024, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 504, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Raunahi, District- Faizabad/Ayodhya is hereby set aside.

16. Let the appellant- Suraj Gaud be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number "

4. Taking note of the aforesaid as also the fact of the present case, this Court finds that the case of the appellant is similar to the case of the co-accused Suraj Gaud as also the fact that the appellant has no criminal history and he has been languishing in jail since 09.05.2024, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 21.12.2024 passed 3 CRLA No. 483 of 2025 by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Faizabad/Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 2653 of 2024, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.233 of 2024, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 504, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station- Raunahi, District- Faizabad/Ayodhya is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed.

5. Let appellant, Vishnu, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond 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.

6. 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 22, 2025 Mohit Singh/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

: Sudhanshu S. Tripathi, Anuj Dayal, Raghav Bansal, Ritwika Tripathi, Sumit Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Abhinav Srivastava Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Badrul Hasan, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Abhinav Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 21.12.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Faizabad/Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 2653 of 2024, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.233 of 2024, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 504, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station- Raunahi, District- Faizabad/Ayodhya.

3. Vide order dated 19.09.2025, this Court allowed the Criminal Appeal No. 3094 of 2024 filed by co-accused Suraj Gaud and enlarged the co-accused on bail. The relevant portion of the order dated 19.09.2025 reads as under: "4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 31.07.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Faizabad/Ayodhya in Bail Application (Computer Registration No.) No.1539 of 2024, "Suraj Gaud vs. State" arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.233 of 2024, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 504, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) Station- Raunahi, District- Faizabad/Ayodhya. SC/ST Act, Police

5. It has been submitted by counsel for the appellant that the appellant having no criminal history has been falsely implicated in the present case and is in jail since 09.05.2024 and in this view of the matter the period of incarceration comes to 1?2 years (one and half years).

6. It is further stated that in the FIR No.0233 dated 07.05.2024 lodged at Police Station- Raunahi, District- Faizabad/Ayodhya, in connection to which appellant is in jail since 09.05.2024, general allegations have been leveled against seven persons, including the appellant and same appears from the FIR itself and bare perusal of the same would also indicate that that the incident occurred without premeditation of mind on spur of moment and as such the case of the prosecution would ultimately fall for 2 CRLA No. 483 of 2025 the offence under Section 304 IPC and not for the offence under Section 302 IPC which was added after death of Arjun by deleting Section 308 IPC.

7. It is further stated that the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer annexed as Annexure No.7 to 9 would also indicate that the incident occurred without premeditation of mind.

8. Further, submission is that the co-accused, namely, Isha, Chinta Devi @ Leelawati and Shanti have already been released on bail vide orders dated 25.09.2024, 23.10.2024 and 23.10.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.2763 of 2024, 2958 of 2024 and 2772 of 2024, respectively.

9. It is also stated that main witnesses of the fact, namely, Ram Gopal has already been examined before the trial court and in this view of the matter, there is no possibility of the influencing the witnesses of the prosecution.

10. It is further submitted that the possibility of conclusion of trial in near future is extremely weak.

11. It is further submitted that appellant, having no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 09.05.2024, in these circumstances is entitled to be released on bail and therefore, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

12. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. However, he could not dispute the aforesaid facts including that the co- accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

13. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R. as also that co-accused persons, namely, Isha, Chinta Devi @ Leelawati and Shanti have already been released on bail vide orders dated 25.09.2024, 23.10.2024 and 23.10.2024 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.2763 of 2024, 2958 of 2024 and 2772 of 2024, respectively as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation.

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

15. Order dated 31.07.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Faizabad/Ayodhya in Bail Application (Computer Registration No.) No. 1539 of 2024, "Suraj Gaud vs. State" arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.233 of 2024, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 504, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Raunahi, District- Faizabad/Ayodhya is hereby set aside.

16. Let the appellant- Suraj Gaud be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number "

4. Taking note of the aforesaid as also the fact of the present case, this Court finds that the case of the appellant is similar to the case of the co-accused Suraj Gaud as also the fact that the appellant has no criminal history and he has been languishing in jail since 09.05.2024, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 21.12.2024 passed 3 CRLA No. 483 of 2025 by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Faizabad/Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 2653 of 2024, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.233 of 2024, under Sections- 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302, 504, 506, 34 IPC, Police Station- Raunahi, District- Faizabad/Ayodhya is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed.

5. Let appellant, Vishnu, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond 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.

6. 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 22, 2025 Mohit Singh/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench