LUCKNOW vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of

1. Heard Shri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Julfikar Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

3. 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 15.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 834 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 2025, under Sections 140(1), 70(1), 103(1), 238A, 66, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)V of Act of 1989, P.S. Kotwali Ayodhya, District - Ayodhya.

4. Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, dated

15.05.2025, the learned counsel for the appellant/Ashish Singh @ Lale Singh stated that there is no witness of last seen to support the story of the prosecution, as indicated in the FIR, according to which, in the midnight of

31.01.2025 the deceased left her parental house and her body was found on the next day i.e. on 01.02.2025 from the place nearer to the canal situated in the vicinity.

5. It is stated that upon recovery of the body of the deceased, the post- mortem was carried out and the autopsy surgeon found 18 ante-mortem injuries over the body of the deceased including the injuries on the private 2 CRLA No. 1955 of 2025 parts based upon which it can be said that it is a case of rape and murder.

6. It is further stated that the name of the appellant surfaced in the statement of the co-accused Digvijay Singh alias Durvijay Singh alias Baba, according to whom, the appellant and other co-accused committed crime including the offence indicated under section 376-D IPC and the statement of the co- accused also indicates that the deceased was brought to semi-constructed washroom of I.T.I. School.

7. It is further stated that co-accused Sumitra Devi whose name also surfaced in the statement of the co-accused Digvijay Singh alias Durvijay Singh alias Baba has already has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 05.06.2025 passed in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 5047 of 2025.

8. Further submission is that no doubt crime has been committed but the same is not committed by the appellant. However, the prosecution is implicating the appellant on the basis of the statement of co-accused Digvijay Singh alias Durvijay Singh alias Baba and the statement of Gautam, brother of the deceased, whose statement was recorded on

13.03.2024 by the Investigating Officer after huge delay from the incident i.e. midnight of 31.01.2025, which is of 42 days, and the delay itself is fatal to the story of the prosecution, however, the same is a subject matter of the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial court.

9. It is also stated that a perusal of the statement of Gautam, annexed at page 55 of the paper book, would indicate that the deceased was not seen with the appellant and other co-accused, as according to this witness of the prosecution he saw only appellant and others, not deceased, in the night of

30.01.2025.

10. It is stated that in the facts and circumstances of the case including that there is no witness of last seen and therefore, it would not be possible for the prosecution to establish its case before the trial Court against the appellant, who has been implicated only on the basis of the statement of co-accused the indulgence of this Court and as such, the appellant, who is in jail since

05.02.2025 and has no criminal history, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 3 CRLA No. 1955 of 2025

10. Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Julfikar Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. However, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

11. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., medical report as well as statement of the witnesses.

12. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the fact that the co-accused Sumitra Devi has already been enlarged on bail as also that there is no witness of last seen as also the delay in recording the statement of the witness by the Investigating Officer as also the period of incarceration also keeping in view the fact that the trial 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.

13. Order dated 15.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 834 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 2025, under Sections 140(1), 70(1), 103(1), 238A, 66, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)V of Act of 1989, P.S. Kotwali Ayodhya, District - Ayodhya is set aside.

14. Let appellant Ashish Singh @ Lale Singh, 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 4 CRLA No. 1955 of 2025 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./Section 351 BNSS.

15. 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

16. 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 8, 2025 Mohit Singh/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Julfikar Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

2. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

3. 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 15.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 834 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 2025, under Sections 140(1), 70(1), 103(1), 238A, 66, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)V of Act of 1989, P.S. Kotwali Ayodhya, District - Ayodhya.

4. Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, dated

15.05.2025, the learned counsel for the appellant/Ashish Singh @ Lale Singh stated that there is no witness of last seen to support the story of the prosecution, as indicated in the FIR, according to which, in the midnight of

31.01.2025 the deceased left her parental house and her body was found on the next day i.e. on 01.02.2025 from the place nearer to the canal situated in the vicinity.

5. It is stated that upon recovery of the body of the deceased, the post- mortem was carried out and the autopsy surgeon found 18 ante-mortem injuries over the body of the deceased including the injuries on the private 2 CRLA No. 1955 of 2025 parts based upon which it can be said that it is a case of rape and murder.

6. It is further stated that the name of the appellant surfaced in the statement of the co-accused Digvijay Singh alias Durvijay Singh alias Baba, according to whom, the appellant and other co-accused committed crime including the offence indicated under section 376-D IPC and the statement of the co- accused also indicates that the deceased was brought to semi-constructed washroom of I.T.I. School.

7. It is further stated that co-accused Sumitra Devi whose name also surfaced in the statement of the co-accused Digvijay Singh alias Durvijay Singh alias Baba has already has been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 05.06.2025 passed in CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 5047 of 2025.

8. Further submission is that no doubt crime has been committed but the same is not committed by the appellant. However, the prosecution is implicating the appellant on the basis of the statement of co-accused Digvijay Singh alias Durvijay Singh alias Baba and the statement of Gautam, brother of the deceased, whose statement was recorded on

13.03.2024 by the Investigating Officer after huge delay from the incident i.e. midnight of 31.01.2025, which is of 42 days, and the delay itself is fatal to the story of the prosecution, however, the same is a subject matter of the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial court.

9. It is also stated that a perusal of the statement of Gautam, annexed at page 55 of the paper book, would indicate that the deceased was not seen with the appellant and other co-accused, as according to this witness of the prosecution he saw only appellant and others, not deceased, in the night of

30.01.2025.

10. It is stated that in the facts and circumstances of the case including that there is no witness of last seen and therefore, it would not be possible for the prosecution to establish its case before the trial Court against the appellant, who has been implicated only on the basis of the statement of co-accused the indulgence of this Court and as such, the appellant, who is in jail since

05.02.2025 and has no criminal history, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 3 CRLA No. 1955 of 2025

10. Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Julfikar Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. However, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

11. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., medical report as well as statement of the witnesses.

12. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the fact that the co-accused Sumitra Devi has already been enlarged on bail as also that there is no witness of last seen as also the delay in recording the statement of the witness by the Investigating Officer as also the period of incarceration also keeping in view the fact that the trial 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.

13. Order dated 15.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application No. 834 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 49 of 2025, under Sections 140(1), 70(1), 103(1), 238A, 66, 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)V of Act of 1989, P.S. Kotwali Ayodhya, District - Ayodhya is set aside.

14. Let appellant Ashish Singh @ Lale Singh, 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 4 CRLA No. 1955 of 2025 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./Section 351 BNSS.

15. 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

16. 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 8, 2025 Mohit Singh/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench