High Court · 2025

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

5. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act') against the impugned order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.1107 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.80 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 108, 238, 61(2A) BNS and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Raniganj, District- Pratapgarh.

6. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case the daughter of the informant aged about 21 years was working in Multispeciality Hospital, Durgaganj for a period of four years. One Sahwaj was also working there. There was love affair between both of them and due to dispute between Sahwaz and the victim she consumed poison. When this fact came into the knowledge of co-accused Dr. Amit Kumar Pandey, who was Manager of the hospital, her treatment was started but she could not be saved and she died. Thereafter the information was given to her family on which they became enraged and lodged the F.I.R against the present appellant and some other co-accused persons under sections 70(1), 103(1), 3(5) BNSS Act but after investigation the charge sheet was filed under section 64(1), 108, 238, 61(2A) BNSS Act and under section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Raniganj, District- Pratapgarh.

7. It is further submitted that there is no any allegation of rape against the appellant. He also submits that during postmortem report no any external or internal injury was found on the person of the deceased and cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved for medical analysis. In this regard there is no any role of the present appellant in the instant case.

8. It is next submitted that co-accused, having identical role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 23.06.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1483 of 2025. Accordingly, the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

9. It is further submitted that the appellant is in jail since 30.3.2025 having no any criminal antecedent. All these facts were not taken into consideration by the learned Special Judge while deciding the appeal, therefore, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., impugned order, including the allegation made in the F.I.R, postmortem report showing no any external or internal injury on the person of the deceased and that the appellant is in jail since 30.03.2025 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case and co-accused- Amit Kumar Pandey, having identical role has been released on bail by this Court, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

13. Order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.1107 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.80 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 108, 238, 61(2A) BNS and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Raniganj, District- Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.

14. Let the appellant-Sunil Kumar Yadav alias Monu 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.

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. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

5. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act') against the impugned order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.1107 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.80 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 108, 238, 61(2A) BNS and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Raniganj, District- Pratapgarh.

6. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case the daughter of the informant aged about 21 years was working in Multispeciality Hospital, Durgaganj for a period of four years. One Sahwaj was also working there. There was love affair between both of them and due to dispute between Sahwaz and the victim she consumed poison. When this fact came into the knowledge of co-accused Dr. Amit Kumar Pandey, who was Manager of the hospital, her treatment was started but she could not be saved and she died. Thereafter the information was given to her family on which they became enraged and lodged the F.I.R against the present appellant and some other co-accused persons under sections 70(1), 103(1), 3(5) BNSS Act but after investigation the charge sheet was filed under section 64(1), 108, 238, 61(2A) BNSS Act and under section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Raniganj, District- Pratapgarh.

7. It is further submitted that there is no any allegation of rape against the appellant. He also submits that during postmortem report no any external or internal injury was found on the person of the deceased and cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved for medical analysis. In this regard there is no any role of the present appellant in the instant case.

8. It is next submitted that co-accused, having identical role, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 23.06.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1483 of 2025. Accordingly, the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

9. It is further submitted that the appellant is in jail since 30.3.2025 having no any criminal antecedent. All these facts were not taken into consideration by the learned Special Judge while deciding the appeal, therefore, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., impugned order, including the allegation made in the F.I.R, postmortem report showing no any external or internal injury on the person of the deceased and that the appellant is in jail since 30.03.2025 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case and co-accused- Amit Kumar Pandey, having identical role has been released on bail by this Court, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

13. Order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.1107 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.80 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 108, 238, 61(2A) BNS and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Raniganj, District- Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.

14. Let the appellant-Sunil Kumar Yadav alias Monu 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.

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. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench