High Court · 2025

2. Heard counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State 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 impugned order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No.1446 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.163 of 2025, under Section- 103 B.N.S. and Section- 3(2(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Tikait Nagar, District- Barabanki.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is to the effect that appellants have been falsely implicated in the case by the prosecution/informant and the appellants are innocent and have not committed the crime as alleged in the FIR in relation to which they are in jail, having no criminal history, since 26.04.2025.

5. It is further submitted that according to the FIR the deceased indicated that name of the appellants. However, a perusal of the statement of the informant, namely, Smt. Rampata Rawat, it would indicate that the deceased told the informant that four persons assaulted him, however, the deceased had not indicated the name of the appellants.

6. It is further submitted that in the same terms, the son of the deceased - Raju made his statement before the Investigating Officer, which could be inferred from Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit of the State.

7. Further submission is that the statements of both these persons, namely, Smt. Rampata Rawat/informant and Raju, wife and son respectively of the deceased, would indicate that in fact both of them were not aware about the involvement of the appellants and in fact it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no link to connect the appellants with the present crime.

8. It is also stated that on a question put to the son of deceased- Raju which is to the effect that how he came to know about the involvement of the appellants in the present crime, he pointed out that the deceased indicated the name of the appellants and if this statement would read along with statement of independent witness, who is alleged to be eye-witness, namely, Rajesh Rawat, it would appear that the witnesses, namely, Smt. Rampata Rawat and Raju are not truthful witness nor Ramesh Rawat is a truthful witness as according to his statement, he is an eye-witness, however, in the FIR it has not been mentioned that Rajesh Rawat informed the informant regarding the involvement of the appellants in the crime and till 27.04.2025 Rajesh Rawat failed to indicate the names of the appellants to the prosecution. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, including the fact as indicated that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no link to connect the appellants with the present crime and the statements of the eye-witnesses, namely, Smt. Rampata Rawat and Raju as also independent witness- Rajesh Rawat are not reliable, as also the fact that the appellants are in jail since 26.04.2025 and chances of conviction of the appellants and possibilities of conclusion of trial in near future, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

12. Order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No.1446 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.163 of 2025, under Section- 103 B.N.S. and Section- 3(2(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Tikait Nagar, District- Barabanki is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellants- Raj Vardhan Singh alias Rajbardhan Singh alias Shivam Singh and Aman Sinigh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their 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 appellants shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellants shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellants shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellants 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 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 :- 11.8.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State 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 impugned order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No.1446 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.163 of 2025, under Section- 103 B.N.S. and Section- 3(2(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Tikait Nagar, District- Barabanki.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is to the effect that appellants have been falsely implicated in the case by the prosecution/informant and the appellants are innocent and have not committed the crime as alleged in the FIR in relation to which they are in jail, having no criminal history, since 26.04.2025.

5. It is further submitted that according to the FIR the deceased indicated that name of the appellants. However, a perusal of the statement of the informant, namely, Smt. Rampata Rawat, it would indicate that the deceased told the informant that four persons assaulted him, however, the deceased had not indicated the name of the appellants.

6. It is further submitted that in the same terms, the son of the deceased - Raju made his statement before the Investigating Officer, which could be inferred from Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit of the State.

7. Further submission is that the statements of both these persons, namely, Smt. Rampata Rawat/informant and Raju, wife and son respectively of the deceased, would indicate that in fact both of them were not aware about the involvement of the appellants and in fact it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no link to connect the appellants with the present crime.

8. It is also stated that on a question put to the son of deceased- Raju which is to the effect that how he came to know about the involvement of the appellants in the present crime, he pointed out that the deceased indicated the name of the appellants and if this statement would read along with statement of independent witness, who is alleged to be eye-witness, namely, Rajesh Rawat, it would appear that the witnesses, namely, Smt. Rampata Rawat and Raju are not truthful witness nor Ramesh Rawat is a truthful witness as according to his statement, he is an eye-witness, however, in the FIR it has not been mentioned that Rajesh Rawat informed the informant regarding the involvement of the appellants in the crime and till 27.04.2025 Rajesh Rawat failed to indicate the names of the appellants to the prosecution. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, including the fact as indicated that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no link to connect the appellants with the present crime and the statements of the eye-witnesses, namely, Smt. Rampata Rawat and Raju as also independent witness- Rajesh Rawat are not reliable, as also the fact that the appellants are in jail since 26.04.2025 and chances of conviction of the appellants and possibilities of conclusion of trial in near future, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

12. Order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No.1446 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.163 of 2025, under Section- 103 B.N.S. and Section- 3(2(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Tikait Nagar, District- Barabanki is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellants- Raj Vardhan Singh alias Rajbardhan Singh alias Shivam Singh and Aman Sinigh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their 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 appellants shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellants shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellants shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellants 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 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 :- 11.8.2025 Anand/- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench