Pawan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Vide order dated 07.03.2025, the SHO concerned was directed to inform respondent no. 2 regarding listing of the case and as per office report, respondent no. 2 has been informed about the same. Today when the case is taken up, neither counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is present nor any counter on his behalf has been filed, therefore, this Court has no option but to proceed in the matter to decide the instant appeal. 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 06.05.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 222 of 2024, in Case Crime No. 503 of under Sections 302, 120B/34 IPC, Police Station Mitauli, District Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the appellant is not named in the FIR. His name came in the light during the course of investigation. He next submits that earlier the 2 CRLA No. 757 of 2025 alleged eye witnesses had stated that named accused persons have fired on the deceased, while after getting CCTV footage, they have changed their version and stated that the appellant and other co- accused persons have fired on deceased. He further submits that no recovery on the pointing out of the appellant is made. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that co-accused, namely, RajKishore @ Raju, Pradhan and Kamlesh have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 17.01.2025,

12.05.2025 and 12.05.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3190 of 2024, 549 of 2025 and 611 of 2025 respectively. He next submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 15.11.2023 and he has explained the criminal history. He added that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall 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. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant alongwith other accused has fired on the deceased and country-made pistol has been recovered on the pointing out of the appellant, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. factual However, he has been unable submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. to dispute the other Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, including the allegations made in the FIR, it transpires that the appellant is not named in the FIR; the name of the appellant came into light in the statement of eye witnesses, namely, Chhotu @ Sushil and Ramu, who changed their earlier versions, as firstly they had stated that the named accused in the FIR have fired on the deceased, while after getting CCTV footage, they have stated that the appellant and other co-accused 3 CRLA No. 757 of 2025 persons have fired on deceased; the appellant has explained the criminal history and the co-accused persons have been granted bail; the appellant is languishing in jail since 15.11.2023 and he has undertaken that in case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial. Without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 06.05.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 222 of 2024, in Case Crime No. 503 of under Sections 302, 120B/34 IPC, Police Station Mitauli, District Lakhimpur Kheri, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Pawan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two reliable sureties relating to his family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions- (i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the 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 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 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 4 CRLA No. 757 of 2025 Cr.PC. 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 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 14, 2025 kkv/ (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Vide order dated 07.03.2025, the SHO concerned was directed to inform respondent no. 2 regarding listing of the case and as per office report, respondent no. 2 has been informed about the same. Today when the case is taken up, neither counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is present nor any counter on his behalf has been filed, therefore, this Court has no option but to proceed in the matter to decide the instant appeal. 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 06.05.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 222 of 2024, in Case Crime No. 503 of under Sections 302, 120B/34 IPC, Police Station Mitauli, District Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the appellant is not named in the FIR. His name came in the light during the course of investigation. He next submits that earlier the 2 CRLA No. 757 of 2025 alleged eye witnesses had stated that named accused persons have fired on the deceased, while after getting CCTV footage, they have changed their version and stated that the appellant and other co- accused persons have fired on deceased. He further submits that no recovery on the pointing out of the appellant is made. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that co-accused, namely, RajKishore @ Raju, Pradhan and Kamlesh have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 17.01.2025,

12.05.2025 and 12.05.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3190 of 2024, 549 of 2025 and 611 of 2025 respectively. He next submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 15.11.2023 and he has explained the criminal history. He added that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall 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. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant alongwith other accused has fired on the deceased and country-made pistol has been recovered on the pointing out of the appellant, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. factual However, he has been unable submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. to dispute the other Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, including the allegations made in the FIR, it transpires that the appellant is not named in the FIR; the name of the appellant came into light in the statement of eye witnesses, namely, Chhotu @ Sushil and Ramu, who changed their earlier versions, as firstly they had stated that the named accused in the FIR have fired on the deceased, while after getting CCTV footage, they have stated that the appellant and other co-accused 3 CRLA No. 757 of 2025 persons have fired on deceased; the appellant has explained the criminal history and the co-accused persons have been granted bail; the appellant is languishing in jail since 15.11.2023 and he has undertaken that in case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial. Without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 06.05.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 222 of 2024, in Case Crime No. 503 of under Sections 302, 120B/34 IPC, Police Station Mitauli, District Lakhimpur Kheri, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Pawan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two reliable sureties relating to his family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions- (i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the 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 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 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 4 CRLA No. 757 of 2025 Cr.PC. 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 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 14, 2025 kkv/ (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench