State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another vs Pandey, Vikas Yadav

: Akash Tiwari, Shivam Srivastava, Subhash Pandey, Vikas Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Arun Chand Pandey, Shyam Bahadur Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

1. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

2. Heard counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, 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 Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act') against the impugned order dated 28.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ayodhya in Bail Application No.1097 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.0363 of 2024, under Sections- 364, 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section- 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Inayatnagar, District- Ayodhya.

4. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant, having no criminal history, is in jail since 03.09.2024 and in fact he has not committed any offence.

5. It is further stated that co-accused, namely, Jagdeep Kanojiya, whose role is similar to the appellant, had already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated

19.03.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1452 of 2025.

6. Relevant portion of order dated 19.03.2025 is extracted hereinunder. "1. Heard Sri Bal Keshwar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhishek Kumar Singh, the learned State Counsel.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 363/2024, under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC, P.S. Inayat Nagar, District Ayodhya.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 25.08.2024 stating that the informant's son had gone missing at about 05:00 p.m. on 04.06.2024. On 05.06.2024, it is recorded in the general diary that an information was received at Police Station Inayat Nagar at 19:28 hours that an unknown half burnt dead body, was found in a 2 CRLA No. 2291 of 2025 mutilated condition in Sita Chaura Shamsan Ghat. 4. Inquest proceedings were carried out on the same day and it is recorded therein that the injuries on the dead body could not be ascertained, flesh was missing from both hands, flesh and skin was missing from the chest and abdomen. There were burn marks on the legs. The dead body was wholly mutilated. Post mortem examination of the dead body was conducted and it is recorded therein that the body was decomposing. The entire body had superficial to deep burns with decomposing with bones exposed. Doctor has opined the cause of death to be due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem burn injuries. 5. In furtherance of the FIR lodged on 25.08.2024, statements of the informant and his family members were recorded on 02.09.2024. The informant reiterated the FIR version. One Rajit Ram, mama of the missing person, also reiterated the FIR version. Smt. Sushila, mami of the missing person, stated that the missing person used to work as a cleaner with Sumit Saran, truck driver. On 04.06.2024 a phone call was received on his phone number and he told that driver Sumit Saran had called him. Thereafter, it came to light that the dead body of her nephew Umesh was recovered from a jungle near village Sidhaura. It was also revealed that because of some affair with a girl, Sumit Saran had killed her nephew along with his accomplice Jagdish (the applicant) by setting him ablaze after pouring patrol over him. Shrimati wife of Ram Naresh, mother of the missing person Umesh, stated that Sumit Saran had called him by making a phone call. Thereafter dead body of her son was found in a jungle near the village. She had identified the dead body of her son. 6. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of the material collected during investigation, which has already been annexed with the bail application. A copy of the charge sheet dated 09.12.2024 has also been annexed with the counter affidavit. Although a sample was sent for DNA examination, DNA examination report has not been annexed with the counter affidavit. Learned State Counsel informed that the DNA report is still awaited. 7. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. 8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, what prima facie appears from the material placed before the Court at this stage is that the informant's son had gone missing on 04.06.2024. The FIR was lodged on 25.08.2024. The burnt dead body was reported to be found on 05.06.2024 and the inquest report mentions that flesh of both the hands was missing and flesh and skin of chest and abdomen was missing, the dead body was wholly mutilated and injuries thereon could not be ascertained. The post mortem examination report also mentions that the dead body was mutilated and it was decomposing. However, the doctor has opined that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem burn injuries. When the body was in such a mutilated condition and flesh from hands, abdomen and chest had gone missing, there appears to be a reasonable apprehension that the cause of death could be ascertained by mere visual inspection in such a condition. The DNA examination report is still awaited so as to ascertain identity of the dead body. Strangely, the mother of the deceased has stated on 02.09.2024 that she had identified the dead body on 05.06.2024 and yet in the FIR lodged on 25.08.2024, the only thing mentioned is that her son had gone missing. 9. Without making any further observation which may affect the trial, this Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime. 10. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed." 3 CRLA No. 2291 of 2025

7. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid background of the case, 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 counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, however, they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

9. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as 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 parties, F.I.R., impugned order, including the fact that co-accused, namely, Jagdeep Kanojiya, whose role is similar to the appellant, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1452 of 2025, as also the fact that the appellant, having no criminal history, is in jail since 03.09.2024 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

11. Order dated28.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ayodhya in Bail Application No.1097 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.0363 of 2024, under Sections- 364, 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section- 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Inayatnagar, District- Ayodhya is hereby set aside.

12. Let the appellant- Sumit Sharan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond 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 :- (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. 4 CRLA No. 2291 of 2025 (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. September 3, 2025 Anand/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

: Akash Tiwari, Shivam Srivastava, Subhash Pandey, Vikas Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Arun Chand Pandey, Shyam Bahadur Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

1. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of opposite party no.2 is taken on record.

2. Heard counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, 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 Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act') against the impugned order dated 28.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ayodhya in Bail Application No.1097 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.0363 of 2024, under Sections- 364, 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section- 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Inayatnagar, District- Ayodhya.

4. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant, having no criminal history, is in jail since 03.09.2024 and in fact he has not committed any offence.

5. It is further stated that co-accused, namely, Jagdeep Kanojiya, whose role is similar to the appellant, had already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated

19.03.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1452 of 2025.

6. Relevant portion of order dated 19.03.2025 is extracted hereinunder. "1. Heard Sri Bal Keshwar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Abhishek Kumar Singh, the learned State Counsel.

2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 363/2024, under Sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC, P.S. Inayat Nagar, District Ayodhya.

3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of F.I.R. lodged on 25.08.2024 stating that the informant's son had gone missing at about 05:00 p.m. on 04.06.2024. On 05.06.2024, it is recorded in the general diary that an information was received at Police Station Inayat Nagar at 19:28 hours that an unknown half burnt dead body, was found in a 2 CRLA No. 2291 of 2025 mutilated condition in Sita Chaura Shamsan Ghat. 4. Inquest proceedings were carried out on the same day and it is recorded therein that the injuries on the dead body could not be ascertained, flesh was missing from both hands, flesh and skin was missing from the chest and abdomen. There were burn marks on the legs. The dead body was wholly mutilated. Post mortem examination of the dead body was conducted and it is recorded therein that the body was decomposing. The entire body had superficial to deep burns with decomposing with bones exposed. Doctor has opined the cause of death to be due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem burn injuries. 5. In furtherance of the FIR lodged on 25.08.2024, statements of the informant and his family members were recorded on 02.09.2024. The informant reiterated the FIR version. One Rajit Ram, mama of the missing person, also reiterated the FIR version. Smt. Sushila, mami of the missing person, stated that the missing person used to work as a cleaner with Sumit Saran, truck driver. On 04.06.2024 a phone call was received on his phone number and he told that driver Sumit Saran had called him. Thereafter, it came to light that the dead body of her nephew Umesh was recovered from a jungle near village Sidhaura. It was also revealed that because of some affair with a girl, Sumit Saran had killed her nephew along with his accomplice Jagdish (the applicant) by setting him ablaze after pouring patrol over him. Shrimati wife of Ram Naresh, mother of the missing person Umesh, stated that Sumit Saran had called him by making a phone call. Thereafter dead body of her son was found in a jungle near the village. She had identified the dead body of her son. 6. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copies of the material collected during investigation, which has already been annexed with the bail application. A copy of the charge sheet dated 09.12.2024 has also been annexed with the counter affidavit. Although a sample was sent for DNA examination, DNA examination report has not been annexed with the counter affidavit. Learned State Counsel informed that the DNA report is still awaited. 7. In the affidavit filed in support of the bail application, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has no criminal history. 8. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, what prima facie appears from the material placed before the Court at this stage is that the informant's son had gone missing on 04.06.2024. The FIR was lodged on 25.08.2024. The burnt dead body was reported to be found on 05.06.2024 and the inquest report mentions that flesh of both the hands was missing and flesh and skin of chest and abdomen was missing, the dead body was wholly mutilated and injuries thereon could not be ascertained. The post mortem examination report also mentions that the dead body was mutilated and it was decomposing. However, the doctor has opined that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem burn injuries. When the body was in such a mutilated condition and flesh from hands, abdomen and chest had gone missing, there appears to be a reasonable apprehension that the cause of death could be ascertained by mere visual inspection in such a condition. The DNA examination report is still awaited so as to ascertain identity of the dead body. Strangely, the mother of the deceased has stated on 02.09.2024 that she had identified the dead body on 05.06.2024 and yet in the FIR lodged on 25.08.2024, the only thing mentioned is that her son had gone missing. 9. Without making any further observation which may affect the trial, this Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid facts are sufficient for making out a case for enlargement of the applicant on bail in the aforesaid crime. 10. Accordingly, this bail application stands allowed." 3 CRLA No. 2291 of 2025

7. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid background of the case, 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 counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, however, they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

9. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as 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 parties, F.I.R., impugned order, including the fact that co-accused, namely, Jagdeep Kanojiya, whose role is similar to the appellant, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1452 of 2025, as also the fact that the appellant, having no criminal history, is in jail since 03.09.2024 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

11. Order dated28.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ayodhya in Bail Application No.1097 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.0363 of 2024, under Sections- 364, 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section- 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Inayatnagar, District- Ayodhya is hereby set aside.

12. Let the appellant- Sumit Sharan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond 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 :- (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. 4 CRLA No. 2291 of 2025 (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. September 3, 2025 Anand/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench