Preetam Singh v. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per version of F.I.R. unknown body was found on 13.04.2018, at about

6.30 in the morning within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ram Janambhumi Ayodhya, Faizabad. Information was given by the complainant and a case was registered against unknown persons. Later on body was recognized as that of Ram Kumar.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the during course of investigation, in the statement of the mother of the appellant, the name of the appellant came in the light. He further submits that the alleged weapon used in commission of the offence, which is Banka has been recovered on the pointing out of appellant and co-accused Majeet Manjhi and that there is no eye witness account. The case rests on the circumstantial evidence.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the co- accused, namely, Majeet Manjhi has been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.12.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10377 of 2018. He further submits that the role of co-accused Majeet Manjhi, who has been enlarged on bail is similar to that of appellant. Another co-accused Siyaram Majhi has also been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

07.9.2018 passed in Bail No. 7479 of 2018. He further submits that the case of the appellant is not on the worst footing than that of the other co-accused persons, who have been already granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 02.05.2018, 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 3 CRLA No. 947 of 2022 intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated order dated 17.04.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 481/2021, Preetam Singh Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 31/2018, under Sections 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (v) Act, Police Station Ram Janam Bhumi, District Ayodhya deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that appellant along with other co-accused by using “banka” killed the deceased. As per post-mortem report, the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injury. He next submits that the alleged weapon used in commission of the offence, which is Banka has been recovered on the pointing out of appellant and co-accused Majeet Manjhi and is active participation of accused/appellant 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.

12. 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 the during course of investigation, in the statement of the mother of the appellant, the name of the appellant came in the light. He further submits that the alleged weapon used in commission of the offence, which is Banka has been recovered on the pointing out of appellant and co-accused Majeet Manjhi and that there is no eye witness account. The case rests of circumstantial evidence.; the co-accused, namely, Majeet Manjhi has been enlarged on 4 CRLA No. 947 of 2022 bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated

05.12.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10377 of 2028. He further submits that the role of co-accused Majeet Manjhi, who has been enlarged on bail is similar to that of appellant. Another co-accused Siyaram Majhi has also been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court

07.9.2018 passed in Bail No. 7479 of 2018 as well as the fact that the appellant is in jail since 02.05.2018 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.

13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.04.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 481/2021, Preetam Singh Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 31/2018, under Sections 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (v) Act, Police Station Ram Janam Bhumi, District Ayodhya is hereby set aside.

14. Let the appellant-Preetam Singh 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 following additional conditions- (1) The appellant shall cooperate with 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 5 CRLA No. 947 of 2022 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.

15. 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

16. 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 15, 2025/Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per version of F.I.R. unknown body was found on 13.04.2018, at about

6.30 in the morning within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ram Janambhumi Ayodhya, Faizabad. Information was given by the complainant and a case was registered against unknown persons. Later on body was recognized as that of Ram Kumar.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the during course of investigation, in the statement of the mother of the appellant, the name of the appellant came in the light. He further submits that the alleged weapon used in commission of the offence, which is Banka has been recovered on the pointing out of appellant and co-accused Majeet Manjhi and that there is no eye witness account. The case rests on the circumstantial evidence.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the co- accused, namely, Majeet Manjhi has been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.12.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10377 of 2018. He further submits that the role of co-accused Majeet Manjhi, who has been enlarged on bail is similar to that of appellant. Another co-accused Siyaram Majhi has also been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

07.9.2018 passed in Bail No. 7479 of 2018. He further submits that the case of the appellant is not on the worst footing than that of the other co-accused persons, who have been already granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 02.05.2018, 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 3 CRLA No. 947 of 2022 intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated order dated 17.04.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 481/2021, Preetam Singh Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 31/2018, under Sections 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (v) Act, Police Station Ram Janam Bhumi, District Ayodhya deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that appellant along with other co-accused by using “banka” killed the deceased. As per post-mortem report, the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injury. He next submits that the alleged weapon used in commission of the offence, which is Banka has been recovered on the pointing out of appellant and co-accused Majeet Manjhi and is active participation of accused/appellant 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.

12. 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 the during course of investigation, in the statement of the mother of the appellant, the name of the appellant came in the light. He further submits that the alleged weapon used in commission of the offence, which is Banka has been recovered on the pointing out of appellant and co-accused Majeet Manjhi and that there is no eye witness account. The case rests of circumstantial evidence.; the co-accused, namely, Majeet Manjhi has been enlarged on 4 CRLA No. 947 of 2022 bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated

05.12.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10377 of 2028. He further submits that the role of co-accused Majeet Manjhi, who has been enlarged on bail is similar to that of appellant. Another co-accused Siyaram Majhi has also been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court

07.9.2018 passed in Bail No. 7479 of 2018 as well as the fact that the appellant is in jail since 02.05.2018 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.

13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.04.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 481/2021, Preetam Singh Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 31/2018, under Sections 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (v) Act, Police Station Ram Janam Bhumi, District Ayodhya is hereby set aside.

14. Let the appellant-Preetam Singh 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 following additional conditions- (1) The appellant shall cooperate with 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 5 CRLA No. 947 of 2022 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.

15. 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

16. 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 15, 2025/Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench