Naveen Singh v. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 passed in Bail application no. 901 of 2025 (Naveen Singh Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 243 of 2024, under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352, 3 (5) of B.N.S. Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nasirabad, District Raebareli by the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act Raebareli. As per the service report dated 12.06.2025, the notice has personally been served upon the respondent no. 2 as per the report submitted by the C.J.M. dated 10.09.2025 but neither respondent no. 2 is present nor any counsel has put in appearance on his behalf. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 11.08.2024 under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352 and 3/5 of B.N.S., as well as Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989 (amended in 2015), against seven named persons and five unnamed individuals, including the present appellant. The FIR alleges that the appellant, along with other co-accused persons, visited the informant's residence on 11.08.2024 and asked his son to accompany them, claiming that Vishal Singh (Block Pramukh Pratinidhi) was calling him. When the son resisted, Arjun Yadav, one of the co-accused, reportedly used caste- related slurs and threatened that if he would not come, he would be shot. Consequently, the son tried to flee, but Arjun Yadav shot him, resulting in his death. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that neither the FIR nor the informant's statement recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. mentions that the appellant shot his son. In the statement, the informant attributes the role of carrying the firearm to Arjun Yadav, who is also said to have used the caste- related slurs. During cross-examination, the informant acknowledged that the appellant was a friend of his son, having visited their home 10 to 20 times previously, and had been there a day before the incident, meaning thereby that appellant was not present on the day of the incident as alleged in the FIR and the statement given under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has rejected the bail of appellant primarily on the ground that the injuries found on the deceased's body were corroborating with the medical evidence, without considering who actually used the firearm and uttered the caste-related words towards the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below has mis-appreciated itself in reading evidence on record. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 13.08.2024. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Learned AGA has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that the appellant has not been any role in the incident. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, without commenting upon merits, it is found 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. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act Raebareli in Bail Application no. 901 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.243 of 2024, under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352, 3 (5) of B.N.S. Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nasirabad, District Raebareli is set aside. Let appellant Naveen Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number with the following conditions (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant 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. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (vii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (ix) If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 2.7.2025 Ashish ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 passed in Bail application no. 901 of 2025 (Naveen Singh Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 243 of 2024, under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352, 3 (5) of B.N.S. Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nasirabad, District Raebareli by the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act Raebareli. As per the service report dated 12.06.2025, the notice has personally been served upon the respondent no. 2 as per the report submitted by the C.J.M. dated 10.09.2025 but neither respondent no. 2 is present nor any counsel has put in appearance on his behalf. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 11.08.2024 under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352 and 3/5 of B.N.S., as well as Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989 (amended in 2015), against seven named persons and five unnamed individuals, including the present appellant. The FIR alleges that the appellant, along with other co-accused persons, visited the informant's residence on 11.08.2024 and asked his son to accompany them, claiming that Vishal Singh (Block Pramukh Pratinidhi) was calling him. When the son resisted, Arjun Yadav, one of the co-accused, reportedly used caste- related slurs and threatened that if he would not come, he would be shot. Consequently, the son tried to flee, but Arjun Yadav shot him, resulting in his death. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that neither the FIR nor the informant's statement recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. mentions that the appellant shot his son. In the statement, the informant attributes the role of carrying the firearm to Arjun Yadav, who is also said to have used the caste- related slurs. During cross-examination, the informant acknowledged that the appellant was a friend of his son, having visited their home 10 to 20 times previously, and had been there a day before the incident, meaning thereby that appellant was not present on the day of the incident as alleged in the FIR and the statement given under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has rejected the bail of appellant primarily on the ground that the injuries found on the deceased's body were corroborating with the medical evidence, without considering who actually used the firearm and uttered the caste-related words towards the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below has mis-appreciated itself in reading evidence on record. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 13.08.2024. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Learned AGA has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that the appellant has not been any role in the incident. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, without commenting upon merits, it is found 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. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act Raebareli in Bail Application no. 901 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.243 of 2024, under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352, 3 (5) of B.N.S. Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nasirabad, District Raebareli is set aside. Let appellant Naveen Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number with the following conditions (i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The applicant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicant 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. (iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (v) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. (vii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (ix) If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. Order Date :- 2.7.2025 Ashish ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench