Neeraj Chaurasiya vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt.

averments made in the FIR. He next submits that CCTV footage of the Prerana Hospital also demonstrates that the deceased was brought by Vikky Sahni and Sarvesh Yadav and the dead body of the deceased was also thrown by them only. He also submits that as per the FIR version, deceased was given treatment in the residence of Sonam Sahni and Vikky Sahni. He submits that there is no any link evidence which may connect the appellant directly to commission of the offence in any way. He also submits that, in fact, his younger brother is running the business of medical store from where the informant had borrowed some medicines but he did not pay the amount of the same and when he was asked for payment, then there was some altercation between them. He also submits that as per prosecution case, it appears that this was the case of love affairs and when this came into knowledge of the parents of the deceased, due to fear of defame in the society, perhaps they themselves caused this incident which is a honour killing. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has criminal history which has been explained in para 27 of the 3 CRLA No. 2055 of 2025 affidavit and he is languishing in jail since 06.04.2025. He next added that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall 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. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and learned AGA the State have vehemently opposed contentions aforesaid and submit that appellant is named in the FIR. He is a fake doctor who carries the business in unlawful manner and his clinic was not duly registered. They also submit that on the inspection of appellant's clinic, which was conducted in the shop of one Vinod Pandey, the equipment with regard to conducting of miscarriage of pregnancy and medicines in this respect are recovered. They also submit that as per CCTV footage of Prerana Hospital, it is also apparent that on 05.04.2024 at about 08:10 a.m., the deceased was brought by co-accused Sarvesh Yadav and Vikky Sahni in unconscious state and at about 08:14 a.m., they took away the deceased by catching hands and legs and lay down in the interlocking of the outside of the hospital and thereafter they took the body of deceased at about 08:14 a.m. They further submit that the statements of the staff of Prenana hospital were recorded during the course of investigation, who stated that two persons brought one female patient in unconscious state and they laid down her over the bench and when they asked to them, they told that she had become unconscious, and when the hospital staff checked the pulse of the deceased, then it came into knowledge that the deceased has already died. They also submit that the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons treated the deceased in unlawful manner and when they became 4 CRLA No. 2055 of 2025 unsuccessful, they inflicted injuries and throttled the deceased. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material available on record, including the allegations made in the FIR, it transpires that in the FIR itself it is mentioned that the applicant is a fake doctor who runs the medical clinic, where the deceased was given treatment and when condition of deceased became miserable, then she was brought in the residence of Vikky Sahni and Sonam Sahni and after much deterioration of health of the deceased, she was brought by Vikki Sahani and co-accused Sarvesh Yadav in Prerana Hospital. In this respect, statement of Sunil Kumar was also recorded who admits that there was an illicit relation between his deceased-sister and co-accused Sarvesh Yadav. As per CCTV footage of Prerana Hospital, the deceased Savita was brought by co-accused Sarvesh Yadav and Vikky Sahni on 05.04.2025 at about 08:10 a.m. in unconscious state and at about 08:14 a.m., they brought the deceased catching her hands and legs, outside the hospital. As per the statements of the staff of Prerana Hospital, the deceased was brought by two persons in their hospital and they laid down the deceased over the bench and when they asked them, they stated that she has become unconscious and when staff of the hospital checked the pulse of the deceased, the fact came into their knowledge that the deceased has already died. As per autopsy report, the death of the deceased was caused due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem throttling and three antemortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased. Thus, there are two sets of the events. One set is that the deceased was brought in the clinic for getting abortion and second event is that the death of the deceased was caused due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. As per CCTV footage, she was in the care & protection of co-accused Vikky Sahni and Sarvesh Yadav who is called paramour of the deceased. No specific role of the appellant is attributed in the FIR and in the statements of other witnesses recorded during the course of 5 CRLA No. 2055 of 2025 investigation. The appellant is languishing in jail since 06.04.2025 and has has explained the criminal history and he has undertaken that in case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 212 of 2025, in Crime No. 125 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 88, 103(1), 352, 351(3) of BNS, Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)V and 3(2)V-a of SC/ST Act and Section 5(2)3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, Police Station Palia Kotwali, District Lakhimpur Kheri, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Neeraj Chaurasiya be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties relating to his family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions- (i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 6 CRLA No. 2055 of 2025 (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. 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 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 29, 2025 kkv/ (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

averments made in the FIR. He next submits that CCTV footage of the Prerana Hospital also demonstrates that the deceased was brought by Vikky Sahni and Sarvesh Yadav and the dead body of the deceased was also thrown by them only. He also submits that as per the FIR version, deceased was given treatment in the residence of Sonam Sahni and Vikky Sahni. He submits that there is no any link evidence which may connect the appellant directly to commission of the offence in any way. He also submits that, in fact, his younger brother is running the business of medical store from where the informant had borrowed some medicines but he did not pay the amount of the same and when he was asked for payment, then there was some altercation between them. He also submits that as per prosecution case, it appears that this was the case of love affairs and when this came into knowledge of the parents of the deceased, due to fear of defame in the society, perhaps they themselves caused this incident which is a honour killing. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant has criminal history which has been explained in para 27 of the 3 CRLA No. 2055 of 2025 affidavit and he is languishing in jail since 06.04.2025. He next added that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall 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. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and learned AGA the State have vehemently opposed contentions aforesaid and submit that appellant is named in the FIR. He is a fake doctor who carries the business in unlawful manner and his clinic was not duly registered. They also submit that on the inspection of appellant's clinic, which was conducted in the shop of one Vinod Pandey, the equipment with regard to conducting of miscarriage of pregnancy and medicines in this respect are recovered. They also submit that as per CCTV footage of Prerana Hospital, it is also apparent that on 05.04.2024 at about 08:10 a.m., the deceased was brought by co-accused Sarvesh Yadav and Vikky Sahni in unconscious state and at about 08:14 a.m., they took away the deceased by catching hands and legs and lay down in the interlocking of the outside of the hospital and thereafter they took the body of deceased at about 08:14 a.m. They further submit that the statements of the staff of Prenana hospital were recorded during the course of investigation, who stated that two persons brought one female patient in unconscious state and they laid down her over the bench and when they asked to them, they told that she had become unconscious, and when the hospital staff checked the pulse of the deceased, then it came into knowledge that the deceased has already died. They also submit that the applicant alongwith other co-accused persons treated the deceased in unlawful manner and when they became 4 CRLA No. 2055 of 2025 unsuccessful, they inflicted injuries and throttled the deceased. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material available on record, including the allegations made in the FIR, it transpires that in the FIR itself it is mentioned that the applicant is a fake doctor who runs the medical clinic, where the deceased was given treatment and when condition of deceased became miserable, then she was brought in the residence of Vikky Sahni and Sonam Sahni and after much deterioration of health of the deceased, she was brought by Vikki Sahani and co-accused Sarvesh Yadav in Prerana Hospital. In this respect, statement of Sunil Kumar was also recorded who admits that there was an illicit relation between his deceased-sister and co-accused Sarvesh Yadav. As per CCTV footage of Prerana Hospital, the deceased Savita was brought by co-accused Sarvesh Yadav and Vikky Sahni on 05.04.2025 at about 08:10 a.m. in unconscious state and at about 08:14 a.m., they brought the deceased catching her hands and legs, outside the hospital. As per the statements of the staff of Prerana Hospital, the deceased was brought by two persons in their hospital and they laid down the deceased over the bench and when they asked them, they stated that she has become unconscious and when staff of the hospital checked the pulse of the deceased, the fact came into their knowledge that the deceased has already died. As per autopsy report, the death of the deceased was caused due to asphyxia as a result of antemortem throttling and three antemortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased. Thus, there are two sets of the events. One set is that the deceased was brought in the clinic for getting abortion and second event is that the death of the deceased was caused due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. As per CCTV footage, she was in the care & protection of co-accused Vikky Sahni and Sarvesh Yadav who is called paramour of the deceased. No specific role of the appellant is attributed in the FIR and in the statements of other witnesses recorded during the course of 5 CRLA No. 2055 of 2025 investigation. The appellant is languishing in jail since 06.04.2025 and has has explained the criminal history and he has undertaken that in case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 212 of 2025, in Crime No. 125 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 88, 103(1), 352, 351(3) of BNS, Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)V and 3(2)V-a of SC/ST Act and Section 5(2)3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and 15(3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, Police Station Palia Kotwali, District Lakhimpur Kheri, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Neeraj Chaurasiya be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties relating to his family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions- (i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the 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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 6 CRLA No. 2055 of 2025 (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. 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 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 29, 2025 kkv/ (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench