Kripa Shankar Maurya v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Case called out. No-one appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2/complainant despite service of notice, as appears from Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of State and Office Report dated 28.05.2025. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and 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 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act') against the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District- Lucknow in Bail Application No.3939 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.38 of 2025, under Sections- 105, 352 B.N.S. and Section- 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Gosaiganj, District- Lucknow.

4. While pressing the present appeal, it is submitted that the appellant is innocent and the allegations levelled in the FIR are completely false.

5. It is further submitted that if the story of the prosecution is taken on its face value then the case of the prosecution would fall under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and in this view of the matter, ultimately, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 would be extended to the appellant at the conclusion of trial, if the case is proved against the appellant, as the appellant is having no criminal history.

6. It is further submitted that general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including the present appellant. And on the similar allegations, two co-accused namely, Rajesh and Jitendra have already been 2 CRLA No. 2077 of 2025 enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.09.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1423 of 2025. He also submits that since similar role has been assigned to the appellant, the case of app ellant is not on the worse footing than that of the aforesaid two co-accused, and case of the appellant is in parity with them, therefore, the appellant is also entitled for bail. The appellant is in jail since 24.01.2025.

7. It is further stated that the cause of death could not be ascertained and as such viscera was preserved and till date the F.S.L. Report has not been received. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., impugned order, taking note of the allegations levelled in the FIR as also the facts as stated, that (i) if the story of the prosecution is taken to its face value then the case of the prosecution would fall under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and ultimately, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act 1958 would be extended to the appellants at the conclusion of trial, if the case is proved against the appellants; (ii) the cause of death could not be ascertained and as such viscera was preserved and till date the F.S.L. Report has not been received (iii) on the similar allegations, two co-accused namely, Rajesh and Jitendra have already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court (iv) the final hearing in this appeal in near future is bleak, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

11. Order dated 04.06.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District- Lucknow in Bail Application No.3939 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.38 of 2025, under Sections- 105, 352 B.N.S. and Section- 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Gosaiganj, District- Lucknow is hereby set aside.

12. Let the appellant- Kripa Shankar Maurya be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bonds 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 :- 3 CRLA No. 2077 of 2025 (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. (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.P.C.

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 9, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Case called out. No-one appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2/complainant despite service of notice, as appears from Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of State and Office Report dated 28.05.2025. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and 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 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act') against the impugned order dated 04.06.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District- Lucknow in Bail Application No.3939 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.38 of 2025, under Sections- 105, 352 B.N.S. and Section- 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Gosaiganj, District- Lucknow.

4. While pressing the present appeal, it is submitted that the appellant is innocent and the allegations levelled in the FIR are completely false.

5. It is further submitted that if the story of the prosecution is taken on its face value then the case of the prosecution would fall under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and in this view of the matter, ultimately, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 would be extended to the appellant at the conclusion of trial, if the case is proved against the appellant, as the appellant is having no criminal history.

6. It is further submitted that general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including the present appellant. And on the similar allegations, two co-accused namely, Rajesh and Jitendra have already been 2 CRLA No. 2077 of 2025 enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 26.09.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1423 of 2025. He also submits that since similar role has been assigned to the appellant, the case of app ellant is not on the worse footing than that of the aforesaid two co-accused, and case of the appellant is in parity with them, therefore, the appellant is also entitled for bail. The appellant is in jail since 24.01.2025.

7. It is further stated that the cause of death could not be ascertained and as such viscera was preserved and till date the F.S.L. Report has not been received. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., impugned order, taking note of the allegations levelled in the FIR as also the facts as stated, that (i) if the story of the prosecution is taken to its face value then the case of the prosecution would fall under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and ultimately, the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act 1958 would be extended to the appellants at the conclusion of trial, if the case is proved against the appellants; (ii) the cause of death could not be ascertained and as such viscera was preserved and till date the F.S.L. Report has not been received (iii) on the similar allegations, two co-accused namely, Rajesh and Jitendra have already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court (iv) the final hearing in this appeal in near future is bleak, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

11. Order dated 04.06.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District- Lucknow in Bail Application No.3939 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.38 of 2025, under Sections- 105, 352 B.N.S. and Section- 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Gosaiganj, District- Lucknow is hereby set aside.

12. Let the appellant- Kripa Shankar Maurya be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bonds 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 :- 3 CRLA No. 2077 of 2025 (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. (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.P.C.

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 9, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench