Gaurav Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

2. Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit today in Court. The same is taken on record.

3. 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 13.06.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.1847 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 62/2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 103(1) B.N.S. and Section 3(1) da, 3(1) dha, 3(2) v, S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party No.2 against five named accused persons and some unknown persons with the allegation that on 12.03.2025 at about 11.00 hours in the day Mohd. Kadir and Mohd. Niyaj called away the deceased from his house and about 11.30 A.M. the accused persons, due to old enmity beaten the deceased with Hockey, Danda and Rod in which the deceased received serious injuries and during reinstatement he was died.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the accused 2 CRLA No. 2124 of 2025 persons as well as deceased was students and there was a scuffle between the students. The appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. No specific role is assigned in the F.I.R. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. One bamboo stick was allegedly recovered from the joint possession of the six accused persons at the time of their arrest. The alleged recovery appears to have been planted. He further submits that there is no eye witness account. The complainant was neither present on the place of occurrence at the time of alleged incident nor he has seen the alleged incident and he has lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of hearsay facts.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the alleged witness Sagar Saroj is not an eye-witness. He further submits that the alleged injured witness was not medically examined, and during the investigation, the Investigating Officer did not collect the medical report of the injured witness.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that on 12.03.2025 the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted, in which the doctor has opined that the cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to anti mortem head injury.

8. Learned counsel appellant further submits accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 13.03.2025, who has no 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

13.06.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.1847 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 62/2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 103(1) B.N.S. and Section 3(1) da, 3(1) dha, 3(2) v, S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial. 3 CRLA No. 2124 of 2025

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and 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 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 on the perusal of the material available on record, it transpires that the accused persons as well as the deceased was a student, and there was a scuffle between the students. No specific role has been assigned to the appellant in the F.I.R. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. There is no eyewitness account, and the alleged injured witness was not medically examined as well as the fact that the appellant is in jail since 13.03.2025 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 order dated 13.06.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.1847 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 62/2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 103(1) B.N.S. and Section 3(1) da, 3(1) dha, 3(2) v, S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant-Gaurav Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount 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 4 CRLA No. 2124 of 2025 (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate 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 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

15. 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 17, 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 counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

2. Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit today in Court. The same is taken on record.

3. 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 13.06.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.1847 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 62/2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 103(1) B.N.S. and Section 3(1) da, 3(1) dha, 3(2) v, S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per F.I.R. lodged by the opposite party No.2 against five named accused persons and some unknown persons with the allegation that on 12.03.2025 at about 11.00 hours in the day Mohd. Kadir and Mohd. Niyaj called away the deceased from his house and about 11.30 A.M. the accused persons, due to old enmity beaten the deceased with Hockey, Danda and Rod in which the deceased received serious injuries and during reinstatement he was died.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the accused 2 CRLA No. 2124 of 2025 persons as well as deceased was students and there was a scuffle between the students. The appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. No specific role is assigned in the F.I.R. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. One bamboo stick was allegedly recovered from the joint possession of the six accused persons at the time of their arrest. The alleged recovery appears to have been planted. He further submits that there is no eye witness account. The complainant was neither present on the place of occurrence at the time of alleged incident nor he has seen the alleged incident and he has lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of hearsay facts.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the alleged witness Sagar Saroj is not an eye-witness. He further submits that the alleged injured witness was not medically examined, and during the investigation, the Investigating Officer did not collect the medical report of the injured witness.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that on 12.03.2025 the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted, in which the doctor has opined that the cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to anti mortem head injury.

8. Learned counsel appellant further submits accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 13.03.2025, who has no 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

13.06.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.1847 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 62/2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 103(1) B.N.S. and Section 3(1) da, 3(1) dha, 3(2) v, S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial. 3 CRLA No. 2124 of 2025

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and 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 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 on the perusal of the material available on record, it transpires that the accused persons as well as the deceased was a student, and there was a scuffle between the students. No specific role has been assigned to the appellant in the F.I.R. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. There is no eyewitness account, and the alleged injured witness was not medically examined as well as the fact that the appellant is in jail since 13.03.2025 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 order dated 13.06.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No.1847 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 62/2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 103(1) B.N.S. and Section 3(1) da, 3(1) dha, 3(2) v, S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant-Gaurav Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount 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 4 CRLA No. 2124 of 2025 (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate 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 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

15. 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 17, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench