Manti Verma v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Rejoinder affidavit filed today on behalf of the appellant is taken on record. Heard Sri Subodh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Anil for opposite party no. Kumar, 2/complainant as well as perused the record. learned counsel appearing The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 11.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 136 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.104 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 109(1), 119(2), 119(3), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 331(2), 118(2) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(n), (s) and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Khamariya, District Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that as per the FIR, the accused persons entered into the house of the informant, having country-made pistol and Banka and due to old enmity, they started beating to the informant side and fired from country-made pistol. Resultantly, deceased Maya Devi sustained injuries of firearm 2 CRLA No. 1537 of 2025 and Banka and consequently, she died. Apart from this, Suresh, Indrajeet and Mayaram also sustained injuries in the alleged incident. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no specific role of appellant is mentioned in the FIR. During the course of investigation, injured Suresh, Indrajeet and Mayaram have given their statements, wherein they indicated that Punhai Lal inflicted blow with Banka, while Kuldeep triggered fire with country-made pistol. It is next submitted that as per the medico-legal examination report, the injured sustained injury of firearm, while Indrajeet and Mayaram sustained simple injuries, which were 10 to 12 days old. He further submits that as per the statement of Laxmi (informant), Punhai Lal was having Banka while Kuldeep was having country-made pistol in their hands respectively, thus, the role of firearm injury is assigned to Kuldeep and Banka injury has been assigned to Punhai Lal. No specific role is attributed to the present appellant and no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. He next submits that there is previous enmity between Kuldeep and the complainant and the appellant was also implicated in the present case, being brother of Kuldeep. He next submits that there is no independent eye witness of the alleged incident. The injured persons, namely, Suresh, Indrajeet and Mayaram were examined by the doctor, after ten days of the incident. He further submits that the appellant has no criminal history. He further submits that the co-accused, namely, Muneem Verma, having no graver role, as shown to Kuldeep, has already been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11th of September, 2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2053 of 2025. He further submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 16.03.2025 having no criminal history to his credit and he undertakes 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 submits 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 3 CRLA No. 1537 of 2025 impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned counsel appearing informant has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and contended that appellant alongwith other co-accused persons caused serious injuries to the deceased and over the injured persons. He further submits that accused persons entered into the house of the complainant having sharp-edged weapons and country-made pistol and they caused injuries through the same weapons. He further submits that before the trial court the appellant is not appearing, therefore, the criminal case is lingering on and they are not cooperating with the trial proceedings. He further submits that some witness of fact have been examined before the trial court and they supported the prosecution story in their examination-in-chief and from perusal of the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, it is apparent that the appellant has participated in commission of the crime actively and attacked over the injured persons with 'Danda' and during the course of investigation, the 'Danda' was recovered from the possession of the appellant. Learned AGA for the State has also supported the version of learned counsel for the complainant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, it transpires that as per the version of the FIR, the appellant alongwith other co-accused persons entered into the house of the informant having country-made pistol and sharp- aged weapons and they inflicted injuries to the deceased as well as to other injured persons. Nowhere it is mentioned that they have inflicted injuries using 'Danda'. During the course of investigation, it is alleged that the appellant was having 'Danda' but that 'Danda' was recovered from some other accused person. On perusal of the record, it also reveals that before the trial court some of the witness of fact i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 have been examined and in their statement of examination-in-chief, it is mentioned that the appellant was having 'Danda' in his hand, while recovery of 'Danda' is not made from his possession. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, 4 CRLA No. 1537 of 2025 submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, statements of the witness of facts, chance of conviction of the appellant in the present case and narrative of the prosecution as well as considering the fact that co-accused, having no graver role than Kuldeep, has already been granted bail, the present criminal appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 11.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 136 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.104 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 109(1), 119(2), 119(3), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 331(2), 118(2) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(n), (s) and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Khamariya, District Lakhimpur Kheri, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Sandeep Kumar @ Mantori @ Manti Verma 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. 5 CRLA No. 1537 of 2025 (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. 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 9, 2025 kkv/ (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Rejoinder affidavit filed today on behalf of the appellant is taken on record. Heard Sri Subodh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and Sri Anil for opposite party no. Kumar, 2/complainant as well as perused the record. learned counsel appearing The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 11.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 136 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.104 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 109(1), 119(2), 119(3), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 331(2), 118(2) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(n), (s) and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Khamariya, District Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that as per the FIR, the accused persons entered into the house of the informant, having country-made pistol and Banka and due to old enmity, they started beating to the informant side and fired from country-made pistol. Resultantly, deceased Maya Devi sustained injuries of firearm 2 CRLA No. 1537 of 2025 and Banka and consequently, she died. Apart from this, Suresh, Indrajeet and Mayaram also sustained injuries in the alleged incident. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that no specific role of appellant is mentioned in the FIR. During the course of investigation, injured Suresh, Indrajeet and Mayaram have given their statements, wherein they indicated that Punhai Lal inflicted blow with Banka, while Kuldeep triggered fire with country-made pistol. It is next submitted that as per the medico-legal examination report, the injured sustained injury of firearm, while Indrajeet and Mayaram sustained simple injuries, which were 10 to 12 days old. He further submits that as per the statement of Laxmi (informant), Punhai Lal was having Banka while Kuldeep was having country-made pistol in their hands respectively, thus, the role of firearm injury is assigned to Kuldeep and Banka injury has been assigned to Punhai Lal. No specific role is attributed to the present appellant and no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. He next submits that there is previous enmity between Kuldeep and the complainant and the appellant was also implicated in the present case, being brother of Kuldeep. He next submits that there is no independent eye witness of the alleged incident. The injured persons, namely, Suresh, Indrajeet and Mayaram were examined by the doctor, after ten days of the incident. He further submits that the appellant has no criminal history. He further submits that the co-accused, namely, Muneem Verma, having no graver role, as shown to Kuldeep, has already been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11th of September, 2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2053 of 2025. He further submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 16.03.2025 having no criminal history to his credit and he undertakes 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 submits 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 3 CRLA No. 1537 of 2025 impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned counsel appearing informant has vehemently opposed the contentions aforesaid and contended that appellant alongwith other co-accused persons caused serious injuries to the deceased and over the injured persons. He further submits that accused persons entered into the house of the complainant having sharp-edged weapons and country-made pistol and they caused injuries through the same weapons. He further submits that before the trial court the appellant is not appearing, therefore, the criminal case is lingering on and they are not cooperating with the trial proceedings. He further submits that some witness of fact have been examined before the trial court and they supported the prosecution story in their examination-in-chief and from perusal of the statements of PW-1 and PW-2, it is apparent that the appellant has participated in commission of the crime actively and attacked over the injured persons with 'Danda' and during the course of investigation, the 'Danda' was recovered from the possession of the appellant. Learned AGA for the State has also supported the version of learned counsel for the complainant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, it transpires that as per the version of the FIR, the appellant alongwith other co-accused persons entered into the house of the informant having country-made pistol and sharp- aged weapons and they inflicted injuries to the deceased as well as to other injured persons. Nowhere it is mentioned that they have inflicted injuries using 'Danda'. During the course of investigation, it is alleged that the appellant was having 'Danda' but that 'Danda' was recovered from some other accused person. On perusal of the record, it also reveals that before the trial court some of the witness of fact i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 have been examined and in their statement of examination-in-chief, it is mentioned that the appellant was having 'Danda' in his hand, while recovery of 'Danda' is not made from his possession. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, 4 CRLA No. 1537 of 2025 submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, statements of the witness of facts, chance of conviction of the appellant in the present case and narrative of the prosecution as well as considering the fact that co-accused, having no graver role than Kuldeep, has already been granted bail, the present criminal appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 11.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 136 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.104 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 3(5), 109(1), 119(2), 119(3), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 331(2), 118(2) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(n), (s) and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Khamariya, District Lakhimpur Kheri, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Sandeep Kumar @ Mantori @ Manti Verma 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. 5 CRLA No. 1537 of 2025 (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. 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 9, 2025 kkv/ (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench