Sushil Kumar Pandey Alias Saddam v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko And Another

2. Heard counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act') against the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.387 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.008 of 2025, under Sections- 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109 B.N.S. and Sections- 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)V & 3(2)V-A of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh.

4. While pressing the present appeal, it is submitted that if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face value then in that eventuality the offence under Section 109 B.N.S. (akin to Section 307 I.P.C.) would not be attracted and only the offence under Section 117 B.N.S. (akin to Section 325 I.P.C.) would be attracted. It is for the reason that as per FIR the incident occurred on account of refusal of the labour wages charged by Radheyshyam by the appellant- Sushil Kumar Pandey.

5. It is further submitted that the appellant is having criminal history of one 2 CRLA No. 1218 of 2025 case, which has been explained in para no.21 of the affidavit filed in support of the first bail application and he is languishing in jail since 09.01.2025.

6. It is further submitted that in fact between the two, i.e. the appellant and the injured- Radheyshyam an altercation took place in which Radheyshyam as also the appellant sustained injury, which is apparent from the injury report of appellant dated 09.01.2025, annexed at page no.41 of the paper book.

7. It is further stated that on a conjoint reading of statement of Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh, recorded during investigation, annexed at page no.53 of the paper book, as also the C.T. Scan Report, annexed at page no.12 of the counter affidavit of the State, it reflects that the head injury sustained by Radheyshyam was grievous in nature, but not fatal. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

8. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

9. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

10. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., impugned order, taking note of the allegations levelled in the FIR as also the fact that (i) a perusal of statement of Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh, recorded during investigation, as also the C.T. Scan Report, it prima facie transpires that the head injury sustained by Radheyshyam was grievous in nature, but not fatal, (ii) if the case is taken its face value then in that eventuality the offence under Section 109 B.N.S. (akin to Section 307 I.P.C.) would not be attracted and only the offence under Section 117 B.N.S. (akin to Section 325 I.P.C.) would be attracted, (iii) the dispute arose on a petty issue regarding payment of wages, and (iv) the period of incarceration and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

11. Order dated 03.04.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.387 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.008 of 2025, under Sections- 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109 B.N.S. and 3 CRLA No. 1218 of 2025 Sections- 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)V & 3(2)V-A of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.

12. Let the appellant- Sushil Kumar Pandey alias Saddam be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount 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 Cr.P.C.

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. August 27, 2025 Anand/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act') against the impugned order dated 03.04.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.387 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.008 of 2025, under Sections- 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109 B.N.S. and Sections- 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)V & 3(2)V-A of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh.

4. While pressing the present appeal, it is submitted that if the case of the prosecution is taken on its face value then in that eventuality the offence under Section 109 B.N.S. (akin to Section 307 I.P.C.) would not be attracted and only the offence under Section 117 B.N.S. (akin to Section 325 I.P.C.) would be attracted. It is for the reason that as per FIR the incident occurred on account of refusal of the labour wages charged by Radheyshyam by the appellant- Sushil Kumar Pandey.

5. It is further submitted that the appellant is having criminal history of one 2 CRLA No. 1218 of 2025 case, which has been explained in para no.21 of the affidavit filed in support of the first bail application and he is languishing in jail since 09.01.2025.

6. It is further submitted that in fact between the two, i.e. the appellant and the injured- Radheyshyam an altercation took place in which Radheyshyam as also the appellant sustained injury, which is apparent from the injury report of appellant dated 09.01.2025, annexed at page no.41 of the paper book.

7. It is further stated that on a conjoint reading of statement of Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh, recorded during investigation, annexed at page no.53 of the paper book, as also the C.T. Scan Report, annexed at page no.12 of the counter affidavit of the State, it reflects that the head injury sustained by Radheyshyam was grievous in nature, but not fatal. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

8. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

9. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

10. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., impugned order, taking note of the allegations levelled in the FIR as also the fact that (i) a perusal of statement of Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh, recorded during investigation, as also the C.T. Scan Report, it prima facie transpires that the head injury sustained by Radheyshyam was grievous in nature, but not fatal, (ii) if the case is taken its face value then in that eventuality the offence under Section 109 B.N.S. (akin to Section 307 I.P.C.) would not be attracted and only the offence under Section 117 B.N.S. (akin to Section 325 I.P.C.) would be attracted, (iii) the dispute arose on a petty issue regarding payment of wages, and (iv) the period of incarceration and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

11. Order dated 03.04.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.387 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.008 of 2025, under Sections- 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109 B.N.S. and 3 CRLA No. 1218 of 2025 Sections- 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)V & 3(2)V-A of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Baghrai, District- Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.

12. Let the appellant- Sushil Kumar Pandey alias Saddam be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount 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 Cr.P.C.

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. August 27, 2025 Anand/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench