Akhilesh Pandey v. State of U.P. And

2. In the aforesaid background of the case, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 1046 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 20 of 2018, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) dha of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Mill Area, District-Raebarli.

4. It is submitted that co-accused Akhilesh Pandey, similarly situated, has already been released on bail by this Court in terms of order dated 25.06.2025 passed in CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1848 of 2025 (Akhilesh Pandey vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others). The relevant portion of the order dated 25.06.2025 is extracted here-in-under:- "3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli in Bail Application No.1046 of 2025, Sandeep Yadav & Another vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Special Sessions Trial No.288/2018, Case Crime No.20/2018, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(Dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station Mill Area, District Raebareli.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence, but has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation against the appellant is that he insulted the complainant with caste-related words and assaulted him with kicks and fists; however, no injury was found on the person of the complainant. The case has been lodged under Sections 504 and 506 of I.P.C., and Section 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act.

5. His next submission is that the learned trial court has rejected the bail application of the appellant without considering all these facts and only on the basis of criminal history of co-accused, Sandeep. There is no any criminal history of the present appellant. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality, warranting interference by this Court and the same deserves to be set aside. There is request to enlarge the appellant on bail during the course of the trial.

6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State, perusal of the record, order passed by the learned trial Court dated 06.05.2025, there appears to be sufficient ground for granting bail to the appellant during the course of the trial. Therefore, the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant dated 06.05.2025 is hereby set-aside."

5. As such, the appellant, who is in jail since 23.04.2025, is also entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

6. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the fact that co- accused Akhilesh Pandey has already been released on bail by this Court.

7. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., injury report(s) as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) of the informant/victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

8. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the fact that co-accused Akhilesh Pandey has already been released on bail by this Court 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.

9. The order dated 06.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 1046 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 20 of 2018, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) dha of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Mill Area, District- Raebarli, is hereby set aside.

10. Let appellant Sandeep Yadav, 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. (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.

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. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Vinay/- VINAY KUMAR VINAY KUMAR VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

2. In the aforesaid background of the case, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 1046 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 20 of 2018, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) dha of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Mill Area, District-Raebarli.

4. It is submitted that co-accused Akhilesh Pandey, similarly situated, has already been released on bail by this Court in terms of order dated 25.06.2025 passed in CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1848 of 2025 (Akhilesh Pandey vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others). The relevant portion of the order dated 25.06.2025 is extracted here-in-under:- "3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli in Bail Application No.1046 of 2025, Sandeep Yadav & Another vs. State of U.P.), arising out of Special Sessions Trial No.288/2018, Case Crime No.20/2018, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(Dha) SC/ST Act, Police Station Mill Area, District Raebareli.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence, but has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation against the appellant is that he insulted the complainant with caste-related words and assaulted him with kicks and fists; however, no injury was found on the person of the complainant. The case has been lodged under Sections 504 and 506 of I.P.C., and Section 3(1)(dha) of the SC/ST Act.

5. His next submission is that the learned trial court has rejected the bail application of the appellant without considering all these facts and only on the basis of criminal history of co-accused, Sandeep. There is no any criminal history of the present appellant. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality, warranting interference by this Court and the same deserves to be set aside. There is request to enlarge the appellant on bail during the course of the trial.

6. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State, perusal of the record, order passed by the learned trial Court dated 06.05.2025, there appears to be sufficient ground for granting bail to the appellant during the course of the trial. Therefore, the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant dated 06.05.2025 is hereby set-aside."

5. As such, the appellant, who is in jail since 23.04.2025, is also entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

6. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the fact that co- accused Akhilesh Pandey has already been released on bail by this Court.

7. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., injury report(s) as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) of the informant/victim recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.

8. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the fact that co-accused Akhilesh Pandey has already been released on bail by this Court 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.

9. The order dated 06.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No. 1046 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 20 of 2018, under Sections 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) dha of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Mill Area, District- Raebarli, is hereby set aside.

10. Let appellant Sandeep Yadav, 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. (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.

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. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Vinay/- VINAY KUMAR VINAY KUMAR VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench