Vaibhav Vaibhav Dubey v. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. Learned AG.A. has filed counter affidavit today in Court, the same is taken on record. As per the office report dated 19.08.2025 notice has already been served upon the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 but till date neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 nor counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf, it appears that they are not interested to file any counter affidavit. 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. 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 19.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in First Bail Application No. 1774 of 2025 (C.N.R. No. UPST010041112025), (Vaibhav Vaibhav Dubey Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 98/2025, under Section 103(1), 115(2), 351 (3), 352, 333 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3 (2) (5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a young 2 CRLA No. 2293 of 2025 boy of 26 years and has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no independent witness mentioned in the F.I.R. As per F.I.R. there is general allegation against all the accused persons andthey inflicted blows of brick, danda and iron rod. No Specific role of the appellant has been assigned in the F.I.R. He further submits that nothing incriminating article has been recovered on the instance of the appellant. He further submits that as per post-mortem report the injuries are contusion and abrasion. Only one injury is on the right ear. He next submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 19.03.2025 and the criminal history of the appellant has been explained in the rejoinder affidavit. He added that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall 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. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserve to be enlarged on bail. 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. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, including the allegations made in the FIR, it transpires that as per F.I.R. there is general allegation against all the accused persons andthey inflicted blows of brick, danda and iron rod. No Specific role of the appellant has been assigned in the F.I.R. He further submits that nothing incriminating article has been recovered on the instance of the appellant; the appellant is languishing in jail since

19.03.2025 and he has undertaken that in case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial. Without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court is of the view that the 3 CRLA No. 2293 of 2025 learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in First Bail Application No. 1774 of 2025 (C.N.R. No. UPST010041112025), (Vaibhav Vaibhav Dubey Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 98/2025, under Section 103(1), 115(2), 351 (3), 352, 333 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3 (2) (5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Vaibhav @ Vaibhav dubey 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 (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. 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 4 CRLA No. 2293 of 2025 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. Learned AG.A. has filed counter affidavit today in Court, the same is taken on record. As per the office report dated 19.08.2025 notice has already been served upon the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 but till date neither any counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 nor counter affidavit has been filed on his behalf, it appears that they are not interested to file any counter affidavit. 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. 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 19.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in First Bail Application No. 1774 of 2025 (C.N.R. No. UPST010041112025), (Vaibhav Vaibhav Dubey Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 98/2025, under Section 103(1), 115(2), 351 (3), 352, 333 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3 (2) (5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is a young 2 CRLA No. 2293 of 2025 boy of 26 years and has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no independent witness mentioned in the F.I.R. As per F.I.R. there is general allegation against all the accused persons andthey inflicted blows of brick, danda and iron rod. No Specific role of the appellant has been assigned in the F.I.R. He further submits that nothing incriminating article has been recovered on the instance of the appellant. He further submits that as per post-mortem report the injuries are contusion and abrasion. Only one injury is on the right ear. He next submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 19.03.2025 and the criminal history of the appellant has been explained in the rejoinder affidavit. He added that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall 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. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserve to be enlarged on bail. 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. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, including the allegations made in the FIR, it transpires that as per F.I.R. there is general allegation against all the accused persons andthey inflicted blows of brick, danda and iron rod. No Specific role of the appellant has been assigned in the F.I.R. He further submits that nothing incriminating article has been recovered on the instance of the appellant; the appellant is languishing in jail since

19.03.2025 and he has undertaken that in case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial. Without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court is of the view that the 3 CRLA No. 2293 of 2025 learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in First Bail Application No. 1774 of 2025 (C.N.R. No. UPST010041112025), (Vaibhav Vaibhav Dubey Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 98/2025, under Section 103(1), 115(2), 351 (3), 352, 333 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3 (2) (5) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Vaibhav @ Vaibhav dubey 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 (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. 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 4 CRLA No. 2293 of 2025 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