LUCKNOW vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

2. As per the office report dated 29.09.2025 notice has already been served upon the opposite party No. 2 but till date neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf, it appears that he is not interested to file any counter affidavit.

3. In the above circumstances, as the matter pertains to bail this Court has no option but to proceed for final arguments to decide the present appeal.

4. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 189/2025 (State Vs. Anil), arising out of Case Crime No. 442/2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 326-G B.N.S. and Section 3 (1) (Dha), 3(2) 5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bheera, District Kheri, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per F.I.R. the informant/opposite party No.2 Hardwari Lal lodged an F.I.R. against the appellant and his family members on 6.10.2024 in Police Station Bheera, District Kheri stating therein that due to flood he was in need of alternate 2 CRLA No. 2019 of 2025 shelter, upon enquiry from the village Pradhan, the opposite party No.2 has constructed his hut and started living with his family members, the appellant and his family members have their pacca house and they asked the opposite party no.2 to remove the hut as the same is upon their land of Sahan, then the opposite party No.2 stated that after flood is over he would return to his village, on 02.10.2024 the appellant and his family members set fire in the hut of the opposite party No.2, his son who is handicapped was in the hut, the appellant and his family members beaten to him and pushed to him out side the hut, the appellant and his other family members also abused by caste to opposite party No.2.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the general role has been assigned to all the accused persons. He further submits only burning of thatch and a person was sprinkling water o the same and the complainant has been found on the spot and none has been found and there was no injury to anybody and his family members have denied for medical examination. The allegations of beating are false as there is no medical. He further submits that the other co-accused, namely, Balram son of Jagdish and Manju Devi wife of Balram have already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

30.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2025. He further submits that the case of the appellant is not on the worst footing than that of the other co-accused, who have been already granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

7. Learned counsel appellant further submits accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 22.03.2025, who has no previous criminal history, and in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall also fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated

30.05.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 189/2025 (State Vs. Anil), 3 CRLA No. 2019 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 442/2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 326- G B.N.S. and Section 3 (1) (Dha), 3(2) 5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bheera, District Kheri deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that there is active participation of accused/appellant in the crime. Therefore, the accused/ appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant.

10. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. and considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the fact that only burning of thatch and a person was sprinkling water o the same and the complainant has been found on the spot and none has been found and there was no injury to anybody and his family members have denied for medical examination as well as the fact that the the other co-accused, namely, Balram son of Jagdish and Manju Devi wife of Balram have already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2025 and appellant is in jail since 22.03.2025 without having any criminal history and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 189/2025 (State Vs. Anil), arising out of Case Crime No. 442/2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 326-G B.N.S. and Section 3 (1) (Dha), 3(2) 5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bheera, District Kheri is hereby set aside.

12. Let the appellant-Anil 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 relating to his family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following 4 CRLA No. 2019 of 2025 additional conditions- (1) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate 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 them 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.

13. 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

14. 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 13, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

2. As per the office report dated 29.09.2025 notice has already been served upon the opposite party No. 2 but till date neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf, it appears that he is not interested to file any counter affidavit.

3. In the above circumstances, as the matter pertains to bail this Court has no option but to proceed for final arguments to decide the present appeal.

4. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 189/2025 (State Vs. Anil), arising out of Case Crime No. 442/2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 326-G B.N.S. and Section 3 (1) (Dha), 3(2) 5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bheera, District Kheri, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per F.I.R. the informant/opposite party No.2 Hardwari Lal lodged an F.I.R. against the appellant and his family members on 6.10.2024 in Police Station Bheera, District Kheri stating therein that due to flood he was in need of alternate 2 CRLA No. 2019 of 2025 shelter, upon enquiry from the village Pradhan, the opposite party No.2 has constructed his hut and started living with his family members, the appellant and his family members have their pacca house and they asked the opposite party no.2 to remove the hut as the same is upon their land of Sahan, then the opposite party No.2 stated that after flood is over he would return to his village, on 02.10.2024 the appellant and his family members set fire in the hut of the opposite party No.2, his son who is handicapped was in the hut, the appellant and his family members beaten to him and pushed to him out side the hut, the appellant and his other family members also abused by caste to opposite party No.2.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the general role has been assigned to all the accused persons. He further submits only burning of thatch and a person was sprinkling water o the same and the complainant has been found on the spot and none has been found and there was no injury to anybody and his family members have denied for medical examination. The allegations of beating are false as there is no medical. He further submits that the other co-accused, namely, Balram son of Jagdish and Manju Devi wife of Balram have already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

30.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2025. He further submits that the case of the appellant is not on the worst footing than that of the other co-accused, who have been already granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

7. Learned counsel appellant further submits accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 22.03.2025, who has no previous criminal history, and in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall also fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated

30.05.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 189/2025 (State Vs. Anil), 3 CRLA No. 2019 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 442/2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 326- G B.N.S. and Section 3 (1) (Dha), 3(2) 5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bheera, District Kheri deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that there is active participation of accused/appellant in the crime. Therefore, the accused/ appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant.

10. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. and considering the facts and circumstance of the case and the fact that only burning of thatch and a person was sprinkling water o the same and the complainant has been found on the spot and none has been found and there was no injury to anybody and his family members have denied for medical examination as well as the fact that the the other co-accused, namely, Balram son of Jagdish and Manju Devi wife of Balram have already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 2025 and appellant is in jail since 22.03.2025 without having any criminal history and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.05.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 189/2025 (State Vs. Anil), arising out of Case Crime No. 442/2024, under Sections 115(2), 352, 326-G B.N.S. and Section 3 (1) (Dha), 3(2) 5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bheera, District Kheri is hereby set aside.

12. Let the appellant-Anil 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 relating to his family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following 4 CRLA No. 2019 of 2025 additional conditions- (1) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate 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 them 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.

13. 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

14. 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 13, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench