Rakesh Kumar Saroj vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And

1. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party No. 2/complainant despite service of notice, as appears from Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of State. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances and also taking note of the order of this Court dated 29.08.2025, which says "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", the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail appeal on merits.

2. Heard Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

3. By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 23.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2102 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 157 of 2023 under Sections- 419, 420, 406, 328, 325, 302, 376-D, 34 I.P.C., P.S.- Kandhai, District-Pratapgarh.

4. It is stated that if the case of prosecution is taken on its face value, then in that eventuality, it can be inferred that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case.

5. Further stated that co-accused persons namely Anil Kumar Tiwari and Shitla Prasad Saroj, similarly situated, have already been enlarged on bail by 2 CRLA No. 2156 of 2025 this Court in terms of orders dated 27.06.2025 and 17.07.2025 passed in CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1703 of 2025 and 1933 of 2025. Relevant portion of the order dated 27.06.2025 passed in the case of co-accused/Anil Kumar Tiwari is extracted here-in-under:- "4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the alleged incident is of the year 2018 and the F.I.R. in question was lodged on 16.05.2023. He argues that twice FIRs were lodged. He further argues that, apart from the allegations leveled, prima facie, there is no material to implicate the appellant for the offence in question.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that 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 appellant.

6. Considering the inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR coupled with the fact that the appellant has no criminal antecedent, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 957/2025: Anil Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 157 of 2023, under Section 419, 420, 406, 328, 325, 376D, 34 and 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kandhai, District Pratapgarh is, hereby, set aside."

6. In these circumstances, the appellant, who is in jail since 24.03.2025, is also entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

7. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons namely Anil Kumar Tiwari and Shitla Prasad Saroj have already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

8. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R. as also that co-accused persons namely Anil Kumar Tiwari and Shitla Prasad Saroj have already been enlarged on bail by this Court as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation.

9. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near 3 CRLA No. 2156 of 2025 future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

10. The order dated 23.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2102 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 157 of 2023 under Sections- 419, 420, 406, 328, 325, 302, 376-D, 34 I.P.C., P.S.-Kandhai, District-Pratapgarh, is hereby set aside.

11. Let the appellant- Rakesh Kumar Saroj 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 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.

12. 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 11, 2025 Arun/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Case called out. No one appeared on behalf of the private opposite party No. 2/complainant despite service of notice, as appears from Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of State. Learned AGA is present in the Court. In these circumstances and also taking note of the order of this Court dated 29.08.2025, which says "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", the Court proceeded to hear the instant bail appeal on merits.

2. Heard Sri Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

3. By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 23.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2102 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 157 of 2023 under Sections- 419, 420, 406, 328, 325, 302, 376-D, 34 I.P.C., P.S.- Kandhai, District-Pratapgarh.

4. It is stated that if the case of prosecution is taken on its face value, then in that eventuality, it can be inferred that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case.

5. Further stated that co-accused persons namely Anil Kumar Tiwari and Shitla Prasad Saroj, similarly situated, have already been enlarged on bail by 2 CRLA No. 2156 of 2025 this Court in terms of orders dated 27.06.2025 and 17.07.2025 passed in CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 1703 of 2025 and 1933 of 2025. Relevant portion of the order dated 27.06.2025 passed in the case of co-accused/Anil Kumar Tiwari is extracted here-in-under:- "4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the alleged incident is of the year 2018 and the F.I.R. in question was lodged on 16.05.2023. He argues that twice FIRs were lodged. He further argues that, apart from the allegations leveled, prima facie, there is no material to implicate the appellant for the offence in question.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that 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 appellant.

6. Considering the inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR coupled with the fact that the appellant has no criminal antecedent, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 passed by learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 957/2025: Anil Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 157 of 2023, under Section 419, 420, 406, 328, 325, 376D, 34 and 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kandhai, District Pratapgarh is, hereby, set aside."

6. In these circumstances, the appellant, who is in jail since 24.03.2025, is also entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

7. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons namely Anil Kumar Tiwari and Shitla Prasad Saroj have already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

8. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R. as also that co-accused persons namely Anil Kumar Tiwari and Shitla Prasad Saroj have already been enlarged on bail by this Court as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation.

9. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near 3 CRLA No. 2156 of 2025 future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

10. The order dated 23.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2102 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 157 of 2023 under Sections- 419, 420, 406, 328, 325, 302, 376-D, 34 I.P.C., P.S.-Kandhai, District-Pratapgarh, is hereby set aside.

11. Let the appellant- Rakesh Kumar Saroj 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 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.

12. 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 11, 2025 Arun/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench