Umed v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (Crl. Misc. Application No.02 of 2025) This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District-Pratapgarh, whereby the bail application (Bail Application No. 1447/2025) of the appellant, Umed Ali, in Case Crime No. 01 of 2025 (Under Section 103(1), 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Raniganj, District-Pratapgarh) was rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, Umed Ali, aged about 25 years, son of Shaukat Ali, has been falsely implicated in this case and has been languishing in jail since 01.03.2025. The FIR was lodged on 01.01.2025 by the father of the deceased, Shivam Saroj, naming two accused, Asif and Sahid, along with three unknown persons, but notably, it did not name the appellant, Umed Ali. The appellant's name subsequently came into the light during the investigation based on circumstances and suspicion. The appellant further submits that he was previously granted bail in all his prior criminal cases, including those under the U.P. Gangster Act and other serious charges, a history which demonstrates his capacity to adhere to bail conditions. The Trial Court committed a manifest error by summarily rejecting the bail application without properly appreciating these facts. He further submits that the principle of parity strongly applies to the appellant's case. The co-accused, Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku (who was implicated in the case based solely on the confessional statement of the present appellant, Umed Ali, recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS Act, 2023), has already been enlarged on bail by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.2889 of 2025. Since co-accused Tinku's role was considered secondary, based entirely on the appellant's statement, and he was granted bail, the present appellant Umed Ali deserves to be enlarged on bail on the established ground of parity, irrespective of the nature of his alleged role. The implication of the 2 CRLA No. 1750 of 2025 appellant rests on weak evidence, and there is no cogent or reliable evidence collected by the Investigating Officer to support the charge-sheet. The appellant undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses, and considering the totality of the facts, the fact of co-accused's bail on parity grounds, and his prolonged detention, he deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District-Pratapgarh, arising out of Case Crime No. 01/2025, deserves to be set aside, and consequently, the appellant, Umed Ali, deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that the appellant, Umed Ali, committed a serious offense, namely murder (Section 103(1) BNS) and offenses under the SC/ST Act against the deceased, Shivam Saroj. They asserted that the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh, rightly found the crime to be of a heinous criminal nature, involving a firearm and resulting in death, which warranted the dismissal of the bail application via the order dated 17.05.2025. Furthermore, the A.G.A. contended that the appellant's role was not merely passive, as he was named in the initial investigation report and the prosecution evidence suggests he played a primary role in the criminal conspiracy that resulted in the death. The A.G.A. also emphasized the appellant's criminal history (as detailed in the case record) and argued that the gravity of his direct involvement in the crime, as the one who allegedly fired the fatal shot or actively participated in the conspiracy, necessitates the rejection of bail, notwithstanding the fact that the co-accused has been enlarged on bail. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., this Court the F.I.R. dated 01.01.2025 ( Case Crime No. 01/2025, P.S. Raniganj) was lodged by the father of the deceased, Shivam Saroj, alleging his son was killed by a firearm. It is noted that the appellant, Umed Ali, was not named in the FIR. His name came into the light in the statement of the complainant, Ashok Kumar, which was a hearsay statement (Sunil Saroj ke Madhyam se) and is not corroborated by direct evidence. Furthermore, the statement of another witness, Anup Saroj, regarding the last seen circumstance, is not substantiated by any other cogent evidence. No recovery has been effected from the appellant. The Postmortem Report confirms death due to a single firearm injury. It is further noted that the appellant has been in jail since 01.03.2025. Crucially, the appellant has criminal history. However, he was previously granted bail in all his prior cases, which include Case Crime No. 555/2019 (Sections 302, 394, 411, and 120-B IPC - relating to Murder and Robbery), Case Crime No. 985/2019 3 CRLA No. 1750 of 2025 (Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act), Case Crime No. 691/2019 (Section 307/34 IPC - relating to Attempt to Murder), and Case Crime No. 652/2019 (Section 3/25 Arms Act), as well as cases under the Explosive Substance Act. Most importantly, the Court finds the established ground of parity, as the co-accused, Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku (whose involvement was based on the present appellant's confessional statement and whose assigned role was the lesser one of incitement/instigation), was granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2889 of 2025. Considering the weak nature of evidence against the appellant, the lack of recovery, and the fact that a co-accused has been enlarged on bail, and without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the court below rejecting the present appellant's bail application is liable to be set aside on the principle of parity. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated

17.05.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional District & Session Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 1447 of 2025; Umed Ali Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 01 of 2025, under Section 103(1), 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Raniganj, District Pratapgarh is hereby set aside. Let the appellant- Umed Ali, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions:- (1) 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.PC. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as 4 CRLA No. 1750 of 2025 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 27, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (Crl. Misc. Application No.02 of 2025) This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District-Pratapgarh, whereby the bail application (Bail Application No. 1447/2025) of the appellant, Umed Ali, in Case Crime No. 01 of 2025 (Under Section 103(1), 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Raniganj, District-Pratapgarh) was rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, Umed Ali, aged about 25 years, son of Shaukat Ali, has been falsely implicated in this case and has been languishing in jail since 01.03.2025. The FIR was lodged on 01.01.2025 by the father of the deceased, Shivam Saroj, naming two accused, Asif and Sahid, along with three unknown persons, but notably, it did not name the appellant, Umed Ali. The appellant's name subsequently came into the light during the investigation based on circumstances and suspicion. The appellant further submits that he was previously granted bail in all his prior criminal cases, including those under the U.P. Gangster Act and other serious charges, a history which demonstrates his capacity to adhere to bail conditions. The Trial Court committed a manifest error by summarily rejecting the bail application without properly appreciating these facts. He further submits that the principle of parity strongly applies to the appellant's case. The co-accused, Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku (who was implicated in the case based solely on the confessional statement of the present appellant, Umed Ali, recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS Act, 2023), has already been enlarged on bail by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.2889 of 2025. Since co-accused Tinku's role was considered secondary, based entirely on the appellant's statement, and he was granted bail, the present appellant Umed Ali deserves to be enlarged on bail on the established ground of parity, irrespective of the nature of his alleged role. The implication of the 2 CRLA No. 1750 of 2025 appellant rests on weak evidence, and there is no cogent or reliable evidence collected by the Investigating Officer to support the charge-sheet. The appellant undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses, and considering the totality of the facts, the fact of co-accused's bail on parity grounds, and his prolonged detention, he deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District-Pratapgarh, arising out of Case Crime No. 01/2025, deserves to be set aside, and consequently, the appellant, Umed Ali, deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that the appellant, Umed Ali, committed a serious offense, namely murder (Section 103(1) BNS) and offenses under the SC/ST Act against the deceased, Shivam Saroj. They asserted that the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh, rightly found the crime to be of a heinous criminal nature, involving a firearm and resulting in death, which warranted the dismissal of the bail application via the order dated 17.05.2025. Furthermore, the A.G.A. contended that the appellant's role was not merely passive, as he was named in the initial investigation report and the prosecution evidence suggests he played a primary role in the criminal conspiracy that resulted in the death. The A.G.A. also emphasized the appellant's criminal history (as detailed in the case record) and argued that the gravity of his direct involvement in the crime, as the one who allegedly fired the fatal shot or actively participated in the conspiracy, necessitates the rejection of bail, notwithstanding the fact that the co-accused has been enlarged on bail. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., this Court the F.I.R. dated 01.01.2025 ( Case Crime No. 01/2025, P.S. Raniganj) was lodged by the father of the deceased, Shivam Saroj, alleging his son was killed by a firearm. It is noted that the appellant, Umed Ali, was not named in the FIR. His name came into the light in the statement of the complainant, Ashok Kumar, which was a hearsay statement (Sunil Saroj ke Madhyam se) and is not corroborated by direct evidence. Furthermore, the statement of another witness, Anup Saroj, regarding the last seen circumstance, is not substantiated by any other cogent evidence. No recovery has been effected from the appellant. The Postmortem Report confirms death due to a single firearm injury. It is further noted that the appellant has been in jail since 01.03.2025. Crucially, the appellant has criminal history. However, he was previously granted bail in all his prior cases, which include Case Crime No. 555/2019 (Sections 302, 394, 411, and 120-B IPC - relating to Murder and Robbery), Case Crime No. 985/2019 3 CRLA No. 1750 of 2025 (Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act), Case Crime No. 691/2019 (Section 307/34 IPC - relating to Attempt to Murder), and Case Crime No. 652/2019 (Section 3/25 Arms Act), as well as cases under the Explosive Substance Act. Most importantly, the Court finds the established ground of parity, as the co-accused, Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku (whose involvement was based on the present appellant's confessional statement and whose assigned role was the lesser one of incitement/instigation), was granted bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2889 of 2025. Considering the weak nature of evidence against the appellant, the lack of recovery, and the fact that a co-accused has been enlarged on bail, and without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the court below rejecting the present appellant's bail application is liable to be set aside on the principle of parity. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated

17.05.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional District & Session Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 1447 of 2025; Umed Ali Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 01 of 2025, under Section 103(1), 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Raniganj, District Pratapgarh is hereby set aside. Let the appellant- Umed Ali, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions:- (1) 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.PC. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as 4 CRLA No. 1750 of 2025 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 27, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench