Aditya Prasad Giri And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (I.A. No.01 of 2025) Heard, Shri Mohit Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ripu Daman Shahi, learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State-respondents. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Balrampur, whereby the First Bail Application of the appellants/applicants (Aditya Prasad Giri and Dileep Giri) in Case Crime No. 24 of 2025, Under Sections 121(1), 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(1)DA, 3(1)DHA, 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station- Laliya, District-Balrampur, was rejected. The Applicants/Accused, Aditya Prasad Giri and Dileep Giri, have filed a criminal appeal against the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Balrampur, rejecting their First Bail Application. They have been in jail since 23.06.2025 in connection with Case Crime No. 24 of 2025 under Sections 121(1), 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(1)DA, 3(1)DHA, 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act. The genesis of the controversy is the alleged assault, obstruction, and caste-based abuse of public servants (Revenue Inspector Suresh Yadav and Lekhpal Maharaj Narayan) on duty, which the defence contends is fabricated due to a long-standing land demarcation dispute over Gata No. 589. The applicants assert that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in a "totally false and fabricated" story as an act of retaliation because the Revenue Inspector had allegedly refused to demarcate their land. The defence highlights that the FIR is anti-timed, the applicants' mobile locations contradict the alleged spot, and that certain witnesses gave a "no-occurrence" report 2 CRLA No. 2306 of 2025 under Section 180 B.N.S.S. The defence explicitly challenges the applicability of the SC/ST Act sections, arguing that the offence is not made out, particularly given that the medical examination confirmed only simple injuries. The applicants further contend that the lower court rejected the bail application in a routine manner, relying heavily on a non-serious criminal history, and they undertake not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses, deserving to be enlarged on bail. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Balrampur, deserves to be set aside, and consequently, the appellants (in jail since 23.06.2025) deserve to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. The defence contends the entire case is a "totally false and fabricated" act of retaliation rooted in a long-standing land demarcation dispute over Gata No. 589, noting that the FIR is anti-timed, the applicants' mobile locations contradict the alleged spot, and the medical examination confirmed only simple injuries. The defence explicitly challenges the applicability of the SC/ST Act sections, arguing that the essential elements of the offence are not made out. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. vehemently oppose the bail application of the accused, Aditya Prasad Giri and Dileep Giri, in connection with Case Crime No. 24 of 2025. The opposition is based on the seriousness of the offence alleged against the applicants, which involves obstructing a public servant from discharging his duty, assaulting him, using criminal force, and giving caste-based abuse to a public servant (Lekhpal Maharaj Narayan) while on official duty. The lower court's rejection order, which is being challenged, notes that the injury reports of the complainant and Lekhpal confirm the assault. The Special Judge, after considering all facts and circumstances of the case, including the applicants' alleged prior criminal history, rejected the bail application on 04.07.2025, concluding that granting bail could encourage the applicants to repeat the offence and tamper with witnesses. The prosecution submits that the Special Judge's rejection was well-reasoned and the appeal should be dismissed. 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, this Court notes the stark conflict between the applicants' claim of false implication and the prosecution's evidence regarding the assault and caste-based abuse of public servants on duty. Given the seriousness of the offence, the arguments regarding the anti-timed FIR raised by the applicants, and the counter-allegations of criminal history and the underlying land dispute, the Court finds that the applicants have made out a sufficient case for setting aside the rejection order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Balrampur. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 3 CRLA No. 2306 of 2025

04.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Balrampur in Bail Application No. 767 of 2025; Aditya Prasad Giri and Dileep Giri Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 24 of 2025, under Section 121(1), 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 132 B.N.S. and Section 3(1)DA, 3(1)DHA, 3(2)(Va) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Laliya, District- Balrampur is set aside. Let the appellants - Aditya Prasad Giri and Dileep Giri, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 24 of 2025 on their furnishing personal bond two reliable sureties 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 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 16, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (I.A. No.01 of 2025) Heard, Shri Mohit Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ripu Daman Shahi, learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State-respondents. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Balrampur, whereby the First Bail Application of the appellants/applicants (Aditya Prasad Giri and Dileep Giri) in Case Crime No. 24 of 2025, Under Sections 121(1), 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(1)DA, 3(1)DHA, 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station- Laliya, District-Balrampur, was rejected. The Applicants/Accused, Aditya Prasad Giri and Dileep Giri, have filed a criminal appeal against the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Balrampur, rejecting their First Bail Application. They have been in jail since 23.06.2025 in connection with Case Crime No. 24 of 2025 under Sections 121(1), 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(1)DA, 3(1)DHA, 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act. The genesis of the controversy is the alleged assault, obstruction, and caste-based abuse of public servants (Revenue Inspector Suresh Yadav and Lekhpal Maharaj Narayan) on duty, which the defence contends is fabricated due to a long-standing land demarcation dispute over Gata No. 589. The applicants assert that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in a "totally false and fabricated" story as an act of retaliation because the Revenue Inspector had allegedly refused to demarcate their land. The defence highlights that the FIR is anti-timed, the applicants' mobile locations contradict the alleged spot, and that certain witnesses gave a "no-occurrence" report 2 CRLA No. 2306 of 2025 under Section 180 B.N.S.S. The defence explicitly challenges the applicability of the SC/ST Act sections, arguing that the offence is not made out, particularly given that the medical examination confirmed only simple injuries. The applicants further contend that the lower court rejected the bail application in a routine manner, relying heavily on a non-serious criminal history, and they undertake not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses, deserving to be enlarged on bail. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Balrampur, deserves to be set aside, and consequently, the appellants (in jail since 23.06.2025) deserve to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. The defence contends the entire case is a "totally false and fabricated" act of retaliation rooted in a long-standing land demarcation dispute over Gata No. 589, noting that the FIR is anti-timed, the applicants' mobile locations contradict the alleged spot, and the medical examination confirmed only simple injuries. The defence explicitly challenges the applicability of the SC/ST Act sections, arguing that the essential elements of the offence are not made out. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. vehemently oppose the bail application of the accused, Aditya Prasad Giri and Dileep Giri, in connection with Case Crime No. 24 of 2025. The opposition is based on the seriousness of the offence alleged against the applicants, which involves obstructing a public servant from discharging his duty, assaulting him, using criminal force, and giving caste-based abuse to a public servant (Lekhpal Maharaj Narayan) while on official duty. The lower court's rejection order, which is being challenged, notes that the injury reports of the complainant and Lekhpal confirm the assault. The Special Judge, after considering all facts and circumstances of the case, including the applicants' alleged prior criminal history, rejected the bail application on 04.07.2025, concluding that granting bail could encourage the applicants to repeat the offence and tamper with witnesses. The prosecution submits that the Special Judge's rejection was well-reasoned and the appeal should be dismissed. 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, this Court notes the stark conflict between the applicants' claim of false implication and the prosecution's evidence regarding the assault and caste-based abuse of public servants on duty. Given the seriousness of the offence, the arguments regarding the anti-timed FIR raised by the applicants, and the counter-allegations of criminal history and the underlying land dispute, the Court finds that the applicants have made out a sufficient case for setting aside the rejection order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge, Balrampur. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 3 CRLA No. 2306 of 2025

04.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Balrampur in Bail Application No. 767 of 2025; Aditya Prasad Giri and Dileep Giri Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 24 of 2025, under Section 121(1), 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 132 B.N.S. and Section 3(1)DA, 3(1)DHA, 3(2)(Va) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Laliya, District- Balrampur is set aside. Let the appellants - Aditya Prasad Giri and Dileep Giri, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 24 of 2025 on their furnishing personal bond two reliable sureties 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 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 16, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench