Sandeep Rajpoot … v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and another

Heard Shri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri 2. Ajay Kumar Srivastava-I, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Pankaj Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No.3638/2025, Case Crime No.623 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 85, 80(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.- Gomti Nagar, District - Lucknow.

4. For the purposes of enlarging the appellant on bail and causing interference in the order dated 30.05.2025, whereby the bail of the appellant has been rejected by the the trial court, this court considered the following facts :- 2 CRLA No. - 1916 of 2025 (i) While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. (ii) The appellant is in jail since 20.12.2024, i.e. for the last about 11 months and the trial is not proceeding as is required under Section 309 Cr.P.C.(now repealed), akin to Section 346 of BNSS. (iii) According to the story of the prosecution, the appellant caused fatal injuries to the deceased in her parental house on 17.11.2024. (iv) According to the post mortem report, the deceased sustained following injuries :- "(i) abraded contusion of 04cm x 02 cm present on physical aspect of right forearm 4cm above right wrist joint. On opening ecchymosis present underneath the injury. The small intestine perforated about 2 litre pus mixed fluid present in abdominal cavity on section cutting of both lungs, liver and both kidneys multiple pus foci." (v) The deceased died due to septicemia due to perforation peritonitis. (vi) According to the story of the prosecution, the appellant kicked the deceased on the stomach. However, the ante mortem injury sustained by the deceased was on non vital part. (vii) According to the statement of Doctor Sakaldeep Kanojiya, who was posted as Emergency Medical Officer at Vinod Hospital, Khargapur, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.8 and the contents of which have not been refuted, on 18.11.2024 the deceased made a complaint to the said doctor with regard to pain as also colitis and therefore the relevant medicine was prescribed and deceased was advised for Ultrasound and X-Ray.

5. Learned counsel next submitted that the appellant is not in position to tamper the evidence of the prosecution and influence the witnesses of the prosecution as the charge sheet has been filed and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in early conclusion of the trial and will not influence the 3 CRLA No. - 1916 of 2025 witnesses. In these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

6. In the aforesaid background of the case, this court also considered paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 29.07.2025. On due consideration of the aforesaid including the statement of 7. Doctor Sakaldeep Kanojiya, which has not been refuted and also that the deceased at the relevant point of time did not level any allegation against the appellant, this court finds that the appellant is entitled for bail. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submissions

8. has placed reliance upon the following judgment(s) :-

Heard Shri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri 2. Ajay Kumar Srivastava-I, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Pankaj Kumar Tewari, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the order dated 30.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No.3638/2025, Case Crime No.623 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 85, 80(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S.- Gomti Nagar, District - Lucknow.

4. For the purposes of enlarging the appellant on bail and causing interference in the order dated 30.05.2025, whereby the bail of the appellant has been rejected by the the trial court, this court considered the following facts :- 2 CRLA No. - 1916 of 2025 (i) While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. (ii) The appellant is in jail since 20.12.2024, i.e. for the last about 11 months and the trial is not proceeding as is required under Section 309 Cr.P.C.(now repealed), akin to Section 346 of BNSS. (iii) According to the story of the prosecution, the appellant caused fatal injuries to the deceased in her parental house on 17.11.2024. (iv) According to the post mortem report, the deceased sustained following injuries :- "(i) abraded contusion of 04cm x 02 cm present on physical aspect of right forearm 4cm above right wrist joint. On opening ecchymosis present underneath the injury. The small intestine perforated about 2 litre pus mixed fluid present in abdominal cavity on section cutting of both lungs, liver and both kidneys multiple pus foci." (v) The deceased died due to septicemia due to perforation peritonitis. (vi) According to the story of the prosecution, the appellant kicked the deceased on the stomach. However, the ante mortem injury sustained by the deceased was on non vital part. (vii) According to the statement of Doctor Sakaldeep Kanojiya, who was posted as Emergency Medical Officer at Vinod Hospital, Khargapur, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No.8 and the contents of which have not been refuted, on 18.11.2024 the deceased made a complaint to the said doctor with regard to pain as also colitis and therefore the relevant medicine was prescribed and deceased was advised for Ultrasound and X-Ray.

5. Learned counsel next submitted that the appellant is not in position to tamper the evidence of the prosecution and influence the witnesses of the prosecution as the charge sheet has been filed and in case he is enlarged on bail he will not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate in early conclusion of the trial and will not influence the 3 CRLA No. - 1916 of 2025 witnesses. In these circumstances, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

6. In the aforesaid background of the case, this court also considered paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 29.07.2025. On due consideration of the aforesaid including the statement of 7. Doctor Sakaldeep Kanojiya, which has not been refuted and also that the deceased at the relevant point of time did not level any allegation against the appellant, this court finds that the appellant is entitled for bail. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submissions

8. has placed reliance upon the following judgment(s) :-