Ranjit Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. As per office report dated 07.05.2025, the notice has been served upon opposite party no. 2. 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. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 10.02.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 38 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.525 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 103(1), 238A of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Dhaurahara, 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 into light on the basis of statements of Kamal Kishor and Prem Narayan Bhargav 2 CRLA No. 1202 of 2025 who have stated in their statements that the appellant and co- accused have made extra judicial confession before them. He next submits that after 22 days of incident, recovery of alleged weapon is made on pointing out of the appellant. He further submits that there is no last seen evidence and there is no eye witness account of the incident. He next submits that the co-accused, namely, Shilpi, having similar role to that of present appellant, has already been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2025. He next submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 28.11.2024, having no criminal history to his credit. He next submits 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 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 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; after the alleged incident, the dead body of the deceased was lying in the field of Bachcha Lal but he was not made the accused in this case. Thereafter the statements of the Kamal Kisor and Prem Narayan Bhargav were recorded by the Investigating Officer after 22 days, who have stated that the appellant and co-accused has made extra judicial confession to them with regard to commission of murder of the deceased. On the arrest of the appellant, the weapon 'Khurpa' is recovered on his pointing out in his thatch but there is no public witness of the said recovery. The co-accused, namely, Shilpi, having similar role to that of present appellant, has already been enlarged on bail by a a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 3 CRLA No. 1202 of 2025

22.09.2025 and the appellant is languishing in jail since 28.11.2024 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 10.02.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 38 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.525 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 103(1), 238A of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Dhaurahara, District Lakhimpur Kheri, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Ranjit Kumar Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond 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 4 CRLA No. 1202 of 2025 court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 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 17, 2025 kkv/ (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. As per office report dated 07.05.2025, the notice has been served upon opposite party no. 2. 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. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred against the impugned order dated 10.02.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 38 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.525 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 103(1), 238A of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Dhaurahara, 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 into light on the basis of statements of Kamal Kishor and Prem Narayan Bhargav 2 CRLA No. 1202 of 2025 who have stated in their statements that the appellant and co- accused have made extra judicial confession before them. He next submits that after 22 days of incident, recovery of alleged weapon is made on pointing out of the appellant. He further submits that there is no last seen evidence and there is no eye witness account of the incident. He next submits that the co-accused, namely, Shilpi, having similar role to that of present appellant, has already been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 2025. He next submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 28.11.2024, having no criminal history to his credit. He next submits 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 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. 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; after the alleged incident, the dead body of the deceased was lying in the field of Bachcha Lal but he was not made the accused in this case. Thereafter the statements of the Kamal Kisor and Prem Narayan Bhargav were recorded by the Investigating Officer after 22 days, who have stated that the appellant and co-accused has made extra judicial confession to them with regard to commission of murder of the deceased. On the arrest of the appellant, the weapon 'Khurpa' is recovered on his pointing out in his thatch but there is no public witness of the said recovery. The co-accused, namely, Shilpi, having similar role to that of present appellant, has already been enlarged on bail by a a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 3 CRLA No. 1202 of 2025

22.09.2025 and the appellant is languishing in jail since 28.11.2024 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 10.02.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST) Act Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 38 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.525 of 2024, under Sections 137(2), 103(1), 238A of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Dhaurahara, District Lakhimpur Kheri, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Ranjit Kumar Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond 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 4 CRLA No. 1202 of 2025 court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 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 17, 2025 kkv/ (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench