Majour v. State of U.P. and another

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. This Court vide order dated 09.10.2025 had passed the following order: “Sri Salik Ram Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no. 2, submits that due non-availability of the deponent, he could not file the counter affidavit. He prays for time to file the counter affidavit. In the interest of justice, as last opportunity, two weeks further time is granted to learned counsel for the complainant to file counter affidavit. No further time shall be granted. List/put up this matter on 30.10.2025. ” Today, when the case is taken up no one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2. 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. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the dated 04.07.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, District Pratapgarh, whereby the Bail Application No. 2211 of 2025: Ranjeet Singh @ Majour Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2 CRLA No. 2104 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 01 of 2025, under Section 103(1), 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Raniganj, District Pratapgarh was rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and has been languishing in jail since

30.05.2025. The FIR was lodged on 01.01.2025 by the father of the deceased, Shivam Saroj, naming two accused, Asif and Sahid, along with three unknown persons, but notably, it did not name the appellant. The appellant's name subsequently came into the light during the investigation based on circumstances and suspicion. He further submits that the principle of parity strongly applies to the appellant's case. The co-accused, Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku and Umed have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 09.10.2025 and

27.10.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.2889 of 2025 and Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2025. Since co-accused Tinku's role was considered secondary, based entirely on the co-accused Umed’s statement, and he was granted bail, the present appellant also deserves to be enlarged on bail on the established ground of parity, irrespective of the nature of his alleged role. The implication of the appellant rests on weak evidence, and there is no cogent or reliable evidence collected by the Investigating Officer to support the charge-sheet. The appellant undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses, and considering the totality of the facts, the fact of co-accused's bail on parity grounds, and his prolonged detention, he deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, District Pratapgarh, whereby the Bail Application No. 2211 of 2025: Ranjeet Singh @ Majour Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 01 of 2025, under Section 103(1), 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Raniganj, District Pratapgarh, deserves to be set aside, and consequently, the appellant, Umed Ali, deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. 3 CRLA No. 2104 of 2025 Per contra, learned AGA has 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. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., this Court finds that the F.I.R. dated 01.01.2025 (Case Crime No. 01/2025, P.S. Raniganj) was lodged by the father of the deceased, Shivam Saroj, alleging his son was killed by a firearm. It is noted that the appellant was not named in the FIR. His name came into the light in the statement of the complainant, Ashok Kumar, which was a hearsay statement (Sunil Saroj ke Madhyam se) and is not corroborated by direct evidence. Furthermore, the statement of another witness, Anup Saroj, regarding the last seen circumstance, is not substantiated by any other cogent evidence. No recovery has been effected from the appellant. The Postmortem Report confirms death due to a single firearm injury; The co-accused, Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku and Umed have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 09.10.2025 and 27.10.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.2889 of 2025 and Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2025. It is further noted that the appellant has been in jail since 30.05.2025. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, District Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2211 of 2025: Ranjeet Singh @ Majour Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 01 of 2025, under Section 103(1), 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Raniganj, District Pratapgarh is hereby set aside. Let the appellant- Ranjeet Singh @ Major, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions:- 4 CRLA No. 2104 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.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 30, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. This Court vide order dated 09.10.2025 had passed the following order: “Sri Salik Ram Tiwari, learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no. 2, submits that due non-availability of the deponent, he could not file the counter affidavit. He prays for time to file the counter affidavit. In the interest of justice, as last opportunity, two weeks further time is granted to learned counsel for the complainant to file counter affidavit. No further time shall be granted. List/put up this matter on 30.10.2025. ” Today, when the case is taken up no one has appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2. 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. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the dated 04.07.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, District Pratapgarh, whereby the Bail Application No. 2211 of 2025: Ranjeet Singh @ Majour Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2 CRLA No. 2104 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 01 of 2025, under Section 103(1), 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Raniganj, District Pratapgarh was rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and has been languishing in jail since

30.05.2025. The FIR was lodged on 01.01.2025 by the father of the deceased, Shivam Saroj, naming two accused, Asif and Sahid, along with three unknown persons, but notably, it did not name the appellant. The appellant's name subsequently came into the light during the investigation based on circumstances and suspicion. He further submits that the principle of parity strongly applies to the appellant's case. The co-accused, Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku and Umed have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 09.10.2025 and

27.10.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.2889 of 2025 and Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2025. Since co-accused Tinku's role was considered secondary, based entirely on the co-accused Umed’s statement, and he was granted bail, the present appellant also deserves to be enlarged on bail on the established ground of parity, irrespective of the nature of his alleged role. The implication of the appellant rests on weak evidence, and there is no cogent or reliable evidence collected by the Investigating Officer to support the charge-sheet. The appellant undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses, and considering the totality of the facts, the fact of co-accused's bail on parity grounds, and his prolonged detention, he deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, District Pratapgarh, whereby the Bail Application No. 2211 of 2025: Ranjeet Singh @ Majour Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 01 of 2025, under Section 103(1), 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Raniganj, District Pratapgarh, deserves to be set aside, and consequently, the appellant, Umed Ali, deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. 3 CRLA No. 2104 of 2025 Per contra, learned AGA has 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. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., this Court finds that the F.I.R. dated 01.01.2025 (Case Crime No. 01/2025, P.S. Raniganj) was lodged by the father of the deceased, Shivam Saroj, alleging his son was killed by a firearm. It is noted that the appellant was not named in the FIR. His name came into the light in the statement of the complainant, Ashok Kumar, which was a hearsay statement (Sunil Saroj ke Madhyam se) and is not corroborated by direct evidence. Furthermore, the statement of another witness, Anup Saroj, regarding the last seen circumstance, is not substantiated by any other cogent evidence. No recovery has been effected from the appellant. The Postmortem Report confirms death due to a single firearm injury; The co-accused, Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku and Umed have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 09.10.2025 and 27.10.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.2889 of 2025 and Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2025. It is further noted that the appellant has been in jail since 30.05.2025. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the court of Special Judge SC/ST Act, District Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2211 of 2025: Ranjeet Singh @ Majour Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 01 of 2025, under Section 103(1), 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Raniganj, District Pratapgarh is hereby set aside. Let the appellant- Ranjeet Singh @ Major, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions:- 4 CRLA No. 2104 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.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 30, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench