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

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. On 20.08.2025 this Court had passed the following order: “Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. List this case on 25.08.2025. It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned in the absence of the learned counsel for the private opposite party and appropriate orders would be passed in the case in first call even in the absence of counsel for the private opposite party.”

3. Today when the case is taken up, neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf. It appears that the opposite party No.2 is not interested to file any counter affidavit.

4. 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.

5. 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 17.06.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge,SC/ST (P.A.) Act,Sultanpur, District Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 1665/2025, arising out of Case Crime No.0083/2025, under Section 103(1)/61(2) B.N.S. and Section 3(2) (v) 2 CRLA No. 2040 of 2025 SC/ST Act, Police Station Jamo, District Amethi, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per statement of the informant some Ritesh had told him about the incident and participation of the appellant-accused persons.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits after two weeks of the alleged incident, the statement of Ritesh was recorded by the Investigating Officer. As per statement of the Ritesh, he had not seen the incident. Only on the basis of confessional statement of Man Singh before him, he had told the role of the accused persons to the informant. He next submits that in so far as role of the appellant is concerned, the informant had stated that the appellant had offered the liquor to the deceased, no specific role about committing murder and participation has been assigned and nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. 8. Learned accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 22.04.2025, who has no appellant submits counsel further 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.

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

17.06.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge,SC/ST (P.A.) Act,Sultanpur, District Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 1665/2025, arising out of Case Crime No.0083/2025, under Section 103(1)/61(2) B.N.S. and Section 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Jamo, District Amethi deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

10. 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 3 CRLA No. 2040 of 2025 has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant.

11. 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 the informant stated before the Investigating Officer that one Ritesh had informed him about the incident. In his statement, Ritesh stated that on the way, he met the appellant, who told him that Man Singh had said he had taken revenge. On that basis, Ritesh informed the informant that the appellant had committed the murder. However, no direct or other circumstantial evidence has been collected, and no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellant as well as the fact that the appellant is in jail since 22.04.2025 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.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned

17.06.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge,SC/ST (P.A.) Act,Sultanpur, District Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 1665/2025, arising out of Case Crime No.0083/2025, under Section 103(1)/61(2) B.N.S. and Section 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Jamo, District Amethi is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant-Vikas Kumar Yadav @ Suraj Lal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 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). 4 CRLA No. 2040 of 2025 (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.

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 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. On 20.08.2025 this Court had passed the following order: “Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. List this case on 25.08.2025. It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned in the absence of the learned counsel for the private opposite party and appropriate orders would be passed in the case in first call even in the absence of counsel for the private opposite party.”

3. Today when the case is taken up, neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 nor counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf. It appears that the opposite party No.2 is not interested to file any counter affidavit.

4. 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.

5. 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 17.06.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge,SC/ST (P.A.) Act,Sultanpur, District Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 1665/2025, arising out of Case Crime No.0083/2025, under Section 103(1)/61(2) B.N.S. and Section 3(2) (v) 2 CRLA No. 2040 of 2025 SC/ST Act, Police Station Jamo, District Amethi, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per statement of the informant some Ritesh had told him about the incident and participation of the appellant-accused persons.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits after two weeks of the alleged incident, the statement of Ritesh was recorded by the Investigating Officer. As per statement of the Ritesh, he had not seen the incident. Only on the basis of confessional statement of Man Singh before him, he had told the role of the accused persons to the informant. He next submits that in so far as role of the appellant is concerned, the informant had stated that the appellant had offered the liquor to the deceased, no specific role about committing murder and participation has been assigned and nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. 8. Learned accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 22.04.2025, who has no appellant submits counsel further 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.

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

17.06.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge,SC/ST (P.A.) Act,Sultanpur, District Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 1665/2025, arising out of Case Crime No.0083/2025, under Section 103(1)/61(2) B.N.S. and Section 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Jamo, District Amethi deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

10. 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 3 CRLA No. 2040 of 2025 has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant.

11. 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 the informant stated before the Investigating Officer that one Ritesh had informed him about the incident. In his statement, Ritesh stated that on the way, he met the appellant, who told him that Man Singh had said he had taken revenge. On that basis, Ritesh informed the informant that the appellant had committed the murder. However, no direct or other circumstantial evidence has been collected, and no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellant as well as the fact that the appellant is in jail since 22.04.2025 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.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned

17.06.2025 passed by Additional Session Judge/Special Judge,SC/ST (P.A.) Act,Sultanpur, District Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 1665/2025, arising out of Case Crime No.0083/2025, under Section 103(1)/61(2) B.N.S. and Section 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Jamo, District Amethi is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant-Vikas Kumar Yadav @ Suraj Lal be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 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). 4 CRLA No. 2040 of 2025 (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.

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