Krishna Kumar Nishad vs Counsel for Appellant(s)

Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the private opposite parties and perused the record.

2. The present appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 12.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No.1146/2025, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.0058/2025, under Sections- 103(1), 191 (2),115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS and Section 3 (2)(5) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Dostpur, District - Sultanpur, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

3. While pressing the instant appeal for enlargement of the appellant on bail, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

4. He further stated that co-accused namely Phool Chand has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.08.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1964 of

2025. Copy of bail order of co-accused Phool Chand placed before this Court for perusal of the Court. In these circumstances, the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

5. Relevant portion of the order dated 22.08.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1964 of 202,5 on reproduction reads as under:- "1. Case called out.

2. Considering the Office Report dated 30.07.2025 as also Annexure No. CA-1 of Counter Affidavit filed by the State with a proof of service of 2 CRLA No. 1666 of 2025 notice, this Court finds that service of notice upon the respondent nos. 2 to 15 is sufficient. However, no one appeared on behalf of them to oppose the present appeal. In this view of the matter, this Court proceeded to hear the instant appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short "Act of 1989") against the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sultanpur, in Bail Application No. 1794 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 58 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.") and Sections 3(2)5 of Act of 1989, P.S. Dostpur, District - Sultanpur.

5. Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, dated 13.06.2025, it is stated that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the allegations upon the appellant are completely baseless.

6. In continuation, it is further stated that a perusal of the facts indicated in the FIR No. 0058 dated 15.03.2025 lodged at P.S. Dostpur, District - Sultanpur in connection with which the appellant is in jail since

10.06.2025 and the statements of the injured witnesses/persons namely Sikander S/o late Punnwasi Gautam, Ramujagir S/o late Punnwasi Gautam, Awadhesh Kumar S/o Ramujagir Gautam, Shivam S/o Sikander Gautam, Shubham S/o Ramchandra Gautam, Pankaj S/o late Nikku Gautam, Rahul S/o late Nikku Gautam, Sarwan S/o Jitendra Gautam, Punita W/o Sikander Gautam, Sangam D/o late Nikku Gautam, Pramila D/o late Punnwasi, Mahima D/o Ramchandra, Maya D/o Sikander, and Garima D/o Sikander would indicate that co-accused Lallu made a blow of lathi on the head of the deceased namely Sunara Devi and role of exhortion has been attributed, to the appellant which is also not correct.

7. It is further stated that the fact that in the incident fourteen persons sustained injuries and this fact indicates that the incident occurred on the spur of moment and in heat of passion and therefore, the case of the prosecution if proved during trial against the appellant would fall under Section 105 of B.N.S., akin to Section 304 IPC.

8. It is further stated that the appellant is in jail since 10.06.2025 having no criminal history and is government employee in Public Works Department is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set 3 CRLA No. 1666 of 2025 aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

9. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

10. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., medical report as well as statement of the witnesses.

11. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the role attributed to the appellant as also the period of incarceration and also that the appellant is a government servant and also that prima facie in this case Section 105 B.N.S. would be attracted as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

12. Order dated 13.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sultanpur, in Bail Application No. 1794 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 58 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S. and Sections 3(2)5 of Act of 1989, P.S. Dostpur, District - Sultanpur, is set aside.

13. Let appellant - Phool Chand, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (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. 4 CRLA No. 1666 of 2025 (vii) The appellant will 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.

14. 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.

15. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations 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 made in this order. "

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the private opposite parties opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel including that co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court.

7. Upon due consideration of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and the facts & circumstances of the case including the role attributed to the appellant as also that co- accused have already been released on bail by this Court and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

8. Order dated 12.05.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No.1146/2025, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.0058/2025, under Sections- 103(1), 191 (2),115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS and Section 3 (2)(5) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Dostpur, District - Sultanpur is hereby set aside.

9. Let the appellant - Krishna Kumar Nishad be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties, out of which one should be of family member/close relative, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. 5 CRLA No. 1666 of 2025 (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 will 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.

10. 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.

11. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations 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 made in this order. September 17, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the private opposite parties and perused the record.

2. The present appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 12.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No.1146/2025, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.0058/2025, under Sections- 103(1), 191 (2),115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS and Section 3 (2)(5) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Dostpur, District - Sultanpur, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

3. While pressing the instant appeal for enlargement of the appellant on bail, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

4. He further stated that co-accused namely Phool Chand has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.08.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1964 of

2025. Copy of bail order of co-accused Phool Chand placed before this Court for perusal of the Court. In these circumstances, the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

5. Relevant portion of the order dated 22.08.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1964 of 202,5 on reproduction reads as under:- "1. Case called out.

2. Considering the Office Report dated 30.07.2025 as also Annexure No. CA-1 of Counter Affidavit filed by the State with a proof of service of 2 CRLA No. 1666 of 2025 notice, this Court finds that service of notice upon the respondent nos. 2 to 15 is sufficient. However, no one appeared on behalf of them to oppose the present appeal. In this view of the matter, this Court proceeded to hear the instant appeal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.

4. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short "Act of 1989") against the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sultanpur, in Bail Application No. 1794 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 58 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.") and Sections 3(2)5 of Act of 1989, P.S. Dostpur, District - Sultanpur.

5. Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, dated 13.06.2025, it is stated that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated and the allegations upon the appellant are completely baseless.

6. In continuation, it is further stated that a perusal of the facts indicated in the FIR No. 0058 dated 15.03.2025 lodged at P.S. Dostpur, District - Sultanpur in connection with which the appellant is in jail since

10.06.2025 and the statements of the injured witnesses/persons namely Sikander S/o late Punnwasi Gautam, Ramujagir S/o late Punnwasi Gautam, Awadhesh Kumar S/o Ramujagir Gautam, Shivam S/o Sikander Gautam, Shubham S/o Ramchandra Gautam, Pankaj S/o late Nikku Gautam, Rahul S/o late Nikku Gautam, Sarwan S/o Jitendra Gautam, Punita W/o Sikander Gautam, Sangam D/o late Nikku Gautam, Pramila D/o late Punnwasi, Mahima D/o Ramchandra, Maya D/o Sikander, and Garima D/o Sikander would indicate that co-accused Lallu made a blow of lathi on the head of the deceased namely Sunara Devi and role of exhortion has been attributed, to the appellant which is also not correct.

7. It is further stated that the fact that in the incident fourteen persons sustained injuries and this fact indicates that the incident occurred on the spur of moment and in heat of passion and therefore, the case of the prosecution if proved during trial against the appellant would fall under Section 105 of B.N.S., akin to Section 304 IPC.

8. It is further stated that the appellant is in jail since 10.06.2025 having no criminal history and is government employee in Public Works Department is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set 3 CRLA No. 1666 of 2025 aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

9. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

10. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., medical report as well as statement of the witnesses.

11. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the role attributed to the appellant as also the period of incarceration and also that the appellant is a government servant and also that prima facie in this case Section 105 B.N.S. would be attracted as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

12. Order dated 13.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sultanpur, in Bail Application No. 1794 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 58 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S. and Sections 3(2)5 of Act of 1989, P.S. Dostpur, District - Sultanpur, is set aside.

13. Let appellant - Phool Chand, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (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. 4 CRLA No. 1666 of 2025 (vii) The appellant will 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.

14. 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.

15. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations 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 made in this order. "

6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the private opposite parties opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel including that co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court.

7. Upon due consideration of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and the facts & circumstances of the case including the role attributed to the appellant as also that co- accused have already been released on bail by this Court and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

8. Order dated 12.05.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No.1146/2025, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.0058/2025, under Sections- 103(1), 191 (2),115(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS and Section 3 (2)(5) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Dostpur, District - Sultanpur is hereby set aside.

9. Let the appellant - Krishna Kumar Nishad be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties, out of which one should be of family member/close relative, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. 5 CRLA No. 1666 of 2025 (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 will 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.

10. 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.

11. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations 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 made in this order. September 17, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench