State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko And Another vs Counsel for Appellant(s)

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

2. As per the office report dated 05.03.2025 notice has already been served upon the opposite party No. 2 but till date neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf, it appears that she is not interested to file any counter affidavit.

3. In the above circumstances, as the matter pertains to bail this Court has no option but to proceed for final arguments to decide the present appeal.

4. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow in Second Bail Application No. 2415/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 294/2024, under Section 103(1), 238 and 61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Bijnor, District Lucknow, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per F.I.R, the informant Shivani went to police station Bijnaur alleging that in the morning of 06.10.2024, some unknown persons came to her house and took her husband Sandeep with them. The informant enquired from her 2 CRLA No. 569 of 2025 neighbours that Sukhram, Abhishek, Munna Yadav and one unknown lady posing as their mother have sold the land to one Master. As per the F.I.R. the role of the appellant is shown that he along with other co- accused persons took away the deceased in their company. After arresting the appellant, the appellant in his confessional statement he has stated that he has inflicted blow on the neck of the deceased through knife and committed murder. He further submits that during investigation CDR of all the accused persons was collected, but the appellant was not present on the place of occurrence. He further submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of evidence is totally broken, the police has also failed to complete the chain of evidence to connect the appellant in the present crime. He further submits that there is no any direct witness of the alleged crime, thus it cannot be said that the appellant is involved in the present case. The appellant is roped by the police only to give gravity of the offence.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the co-accused person, namely, Pradeep has been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 23.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2444 of 2025. He further submits that the role of co-accused Pradeep, who has been enlarged on bail is similar to that of appellant. He further submits that the case of the appellant is not on the worst footing than that of the other co-accused, who have been already granted bail by co- ordinate Bench of this Court.

7. Learned counsel appellant further submits accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 17.10.2024, who has no previous criminal history, and in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall also fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated

22.01.2025 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow in Second Bail Application No. 2415/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 294/2024, under Section 103(1), 238 and 61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Bijnor, 3 CRLA No. 569 of 2025 District Lucknow deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that there is active participation of accused/appellant in the crime. Therefore, the accused/ appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant.

10. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. and considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the fact that as per the F.I.R. the role of the appellant is shown that he along with other co-accused persons took away the deceased in their company, during investigation CDR of all the accused persons was collected, but the appellant was not present on the place of occurrence; the chain of evidence is totally broken, the police has also failed to complete the chain of evidence to connect the appellant in the present crime; there is no any direct witness of the alleged crime, co-accused person, namely, Pradeep has been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 23.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2444 of 2025 as well as the fact that the appellant is in jail since

17.10.2024 without having any criminal history and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow in Second Bail Application No. 2415/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 294/2024, under Section 103(1), 238 and 61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Bijnor, District Lucknow is hereby set aside.

12. Let the appellant-Abhishek Rawat be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties relating to his family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to 4 CRLA No. 569 of 2025 following additional conditions- (1) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate prosecution witness(s). (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 them 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 shall 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.PC.

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 observation(s) 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(s) made in this order. October 13, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

2. As per the office report dated 05.03.2025 notice has already been served upon the opposite party No. 2 but till date neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf, it appears that she is not interested to file any counter affidavit.

3. In the above circumstances, as the matter pertains to bail this Court has no option but to proceed for final arguments to decide the present appeal.

4. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow in Second Bail Application No. 2415/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 294/2024, under Section 103(1), 238 and 61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Bijnor, District Lucknow, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per F.I.R, the informant Shivani went to police station Bijnaur alleging that in the morning of 06.10.2024, some unknown persons came to her house and took her husband Sandeep with them. The informant enquired from her 2 CRLA No. 569 of 2025 neighbours that Sukhram, Abhishek, Munna Yadav and one unknown lady posing as their mother have sold the land to one Master. As per the F.I.R. the role of the appellant is shown that he along with other co- accused persons took away the deceased in their company. After arresting the appellant, the appellant in his confessional statement he has stated that he has inflicted blow on the neck of the deceased through knife and committed murder. He further submits that during investigation CDR of all the accused persons was collected, but the appellant was not present on the place of occurrence. He further submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of evidence is totally broken, the police has also failed to complete the chain of evidence to connect the appellant in the present crime. He further submits that there is no any direct witness of the alleged crime, thus it cannot be said that the appellant is involved in the present case. The appellant is roped by the police only to give gravity of the offence.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the co-accused person, namely, Pradeep has been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 23.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2444 of 2025. He further submits that the role of co-accused Pradeep, who has been enlarged on bail is similar to that of appellant. He further submits that the case of the appellant is not on the worst footing than that of the other co-accused, who have been already granted bail by co- ordinate Bench of this Court.

7. Learned counsel appellant further submits accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 17.10.2024, who has no previous criminal history, and in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall also fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated

22.01.2025 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow in Second Bail Application No. 2415/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 294/2024, under Section 103(1), 238 and 61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Bijnor, 3 CRLA No. 569 of 2025 District Lucknow deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that there is active participation of accused/appellant in the crime. Therefore, the accused/ appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant.

10. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. and considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the fact that as per the F.I.R. the role of the appellant is shown that he along with other co-accused persons took away the deceased in their company, during investigation CDR of all the accused persons was collected, but the appellant was not present on the place of occurrence; the chain of evidence is totally broken, the police has also failed to complete the chain of evidence to connect the appellant in the present crime; there is no any direct witness of the alleged crime, co-accused person, namely, Pradeep has been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 23.07.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2444 of 2025 as well as the fact that the appellant is in jail since

17.10.2024 without having any criminal history and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow in Second Bail Application No. 2415/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 294/2024, under Section 103(1), 238 and 61(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Bijnor, District Lucknow is hereby set aside.

12. Let the appellant-Abhishek Rawat be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties relating to his family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to 4 CRLA No. 569 of 2025 following additional conditions- (1) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate prosecution witness(s). (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 them 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 shall 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.PC.

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 observation(s) 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(s) made in this order. October 13, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench