Others v. Counsel for

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. The present appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated

14.07.2025, passed by Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No.262/2025 (Computerized Case No.2186/2025), arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.104/2025, under Sections 103 (1), 3(5), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 331(8), 118(1), 109(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3(1( (da), 3 (1)(dha), 3 (2) 5 of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Khamariya, District - Lakhimpur Kheri whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

5. While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant who has no criminal history and is in jail since 20.03.2025 is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

6. He further stated that co-accused namely Muneem Verma, Sandeep Kumar @ Manti Verma and Ghanshyam have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 11.09.2025, 09.10.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.2053 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No. 1537 of 2025 and Criminal Appeal No.2051 of 2025. Copy of bail orders of co-accused persons Muneem Verma, Sandeep Kumar @ Manti Verma 2 CRLA No. 2459 of 2025 and Ghanshyam have been placed before this Court for perusal of the Court. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the case of the appellant stands on the similar footing, therefore, the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail. In these circumstances, the appellant may be released on bail on the ground of parity and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

7. Relevant portion of the order dated 11.09.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No.2053 of 2025 on reproduction reads as under:- "1. Heard Ms. Manjusha Kapil, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the private opposite parties as well as perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 204 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 104 of 2025, under Sections- 103(1), 3(5), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 331(8), 118(1), 109(1) B.N.S. and Sections- 3(1)Da 3(1)Dha, 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Khamariya, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

3. While pressing the present appeal, it is submitted that the appellant/Muneem Verma, aged about 65 years, s/o Shivraj has been implicated in the instant case only on account of his son namely Kuldeep Verma (co-accused).

4. It is further stated that as per the FIR in issue i.e. FIR No. 0104/2025 dated 13.03.2025 lodged at Police Station- Khamariya, District- Lakhimpur Kheri, in connection to which the appellant is languishing in jail since 20.03.2025 and whose criminal history has been explained in paragraph-4 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant appeal, which has not been opposed by the side opposite, the appellant and others named in the FIR appeared in the house of deceased where many people were present on account of marriage ceremony.

5. It is further stated that as per FIR, the named accused armed with country made pistol (Katta) and sharp edged weapon (Banka) assaulted the deceased Maya Devi with Banka and firearm injury was also caused to her. In the incident, Suresh s/o Itwari, Indrajeet s/o Maya Ram and Maya Ram s/o Ashrfi also sustained injuries.

6. It is also stated that in the FIR, specific role was not assigned to any of the accused persons.

7. It is further stated that subsequently, statements of injured persons were recorded by the Investigating Officer (in short "IO") namely Suresh, Indrajeet and Maya Ram. Before the IO, these injured persons/witnesses indicated that Punai Lal (named as Thunai Lal in the FIR) assaulted the deceased with Banka and Kuldeep shot fire upon the deceased.

8. It is further stated that injured/Suresh was medically examined on 13.03.2025, after lodging of FIR, and according to doctor concerned, injured/Suresh also sustained firearm injury. Other injured(s) namely Indrajeet and Maya Ram were also medically examined on

23.03.2025 and as per doctor concerned, these persons sustained simple injuries and 3 CRLA No. 2459 of 2025 duration of injury was indicated about 10-12 days before. With regard to injury No. 1 of injured Maya Ram, doctor opined that period of injury cannot be ascertained.

9. It is further stated that in view of the aforesaid, it appears that the case of prosecution in so far as it relates to injured witnesses namely Indrajeet and Maya Ram is concocted one as the injury reports could be fake.

10. It is further stated that before the trial court, informant/Harish Kumar, injured/Maya Ram and injured/Indrajeet have already been examined and a perusal of statements of these witnesses annexed with short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the private opposite parties on record would indicate that these witnesses including the injured witnesses improved the basic/original story of prosecution, as per which, role was assigned to co- accused/Kuldeep Verma and also co-accused/Punai Lal and therefore, their statements are subject to further evidence adduced by the prosecution and also the defence during trial.

11. It is further stated that as the main witnesses of fact except injured/Suresh have already been examined before the trial court and therefore, there is no chance of influencing the main witnesses of fact of prosecution.

12. It is also stated that in the aforesaid background of the case, the appellant, aged about 65 years, who has been implicated in the instant case on account of father of co- accused/Kuldeep Verma to whom specific role has been assigned, is entitled to be released on bail. As such, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside.

13. Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the private opposite parties opposed the prayer for bail. However, they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

14. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the private opposite parties and all the relevant documents placed on record.

15. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the private opposite parties, F.I.R., impugned order, as also the statements of injured(s), injury report(s) and also that the appellant is aged about 65 years and is languishing in jail since 20.03.2025 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case and also the fact that according to basic/original story/case of prosecution co-accused namely Kuldeep Verma and Punai Lal caused fatal injuries to the deceased and subsequent improvement before the trial court , this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

16. Order dated 12.06.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 204 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 104 of 2025, under Sections- 103(1), 3(5), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 331(8), 118(1), 109(1) B.N.S. and Sections- 3(1)Da 3(1)Dha, 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Khamariya, District- Lakhimpur Kheri is hereby set aside.

17. Let the appellant- Muneem Verma 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 (one of family member/close relative) each of the like 4 CRLA No. 2459 of 2025 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. (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.

18. 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

19. 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. "

8. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel including that co- accused have already been released on bail by this Court.

9. Upon due consideration of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and the facts & circumstances of the case including the role attributed to the appellant as also that co- accused have already been released on bail by this Court and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

10. Order dated 14.07.2025, passed by Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No.262/2025 (Computerized Case No.2186/2025), arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.104/2025, under Sections 103 (1), 3(5), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 331(8), 118(1), 109(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3(1( (da), 3 (1)(dha), 3 (2) 5 of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Khamariya, District - Lakhimpur Kheri is hereby set aside.

11. Let the appellant - Abhay Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions :- 5 CRLA No. 2459 of 2025 (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (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 will 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.

12. 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.

13. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations 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 made in this order. November 11, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

4. The present appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated

14.07.2025, passed by Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No.262/2025 (Computerized Case No.2186/2025), arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.104/2025, under Sections 103 (1), 3(5), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 331(8), 118(1), 109(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3(1( (da), 3 (1)(dha), 3 (2) 5 of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Khamariya, District - Lakhimpur Kheri whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

5. While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant who has no criminal history and is in jail since 20.03.2025 is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

6. He further stated that co-accused namely Muneem Verma, Sandeep Kumar @ Manti Verma and Ghanshyam have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 11.09.2025, 09.10.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.2053 of 2025, Criminal Appeal No. 1537 of 2025 and Criminal Appeal No.2051 of 2025. Copy of bail orders of co-accused persons Muneem Verma, Sandeep Kumar @ Manti Verma 2 CRLA No. 2459 of 2025 and Ghanshyam have been placed before this Court for perusal of the Court. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the case of the appellant stands on the similar footing, therefore, the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail. In these circumstances, the appellant may be released on bail on the ground of parity and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

7. Relevant portion of the order dated 11.09.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No.2053 of 2025 on reproduction reads as under:- "1. Heard Ms. Manjusha Kapil, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the private opposite parties as well as perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 204 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 104 of 2025, under Sections- 103(1), 3(5), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 331(8), 118(1), 109(1) B.N.S. and Sections- 3(1)Da 3(1)Dha, 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Khamariya, District- Lakhimpur Kheri.

3. While pressing the present appeal, it is submitted that the appellant/Muneem Verma, aged about 65 years, s/o Shivraj has been implicated in the instant case only on account of his son namely Kuldeep Verma (co-accused).

4. It is further stated that as per the FIR in issue i.e. FIR No. 0104/2025 dated 13.03.2025 lodged at Police Station- Khamariya, District- Lakhimpur Kheri, in connection to which the appellant is languishing in jail since 20.03.2025 and whose criminal history has been explained in paragraph-4 of the affidavit filed in support of the instant appeal, which has not been opposed by the side opposite, the appellant and others named in the FIR appeared in the house of deceased where many people were present on account of marriage ceremony.

5. It is further stated that as per FIR, the named accused armed with country made pistol (Katta) and sharp edged weapon (Banka) assaulted the deceased Maya Devi with Banka and firearm injury was also caused to her. In the incident, Suresh s/o Itwari, Indrajeet s/o Maya Ram and Maya Ram s/o Ashrfi also sustained injuries.

6. It is also stated that in the FIR, specific role was not assigned to any of the accused persons.

7. It is further stated that subsequently, statements of injured persons were recorded by the Investigating Officer (in short "IO") namely Suresh, Indrajeet and Maya Ram. Before the IO, these injured persons/witnesses indicated that Punai Lal (named as Thunai Lal in the FIR) assaulted the deceased with Banka and Kuldeep shot fire upon the deceased.

8. It is further stated that injured/Suresh was medically examined on 13.03.2025, after lodging of FIR, and according to doctor concerned, injured/Suresh also sustained firearm injury. Other injured(s) namely Indrajeet and Maya Ram were also medically examined on

23.03.2025 and as per doctor concerned, these persons sustained simple injuries and 3 CRLA No. 2459 of 2025 duration of injury was indicated about 10-12 days before. With regard to injury No. 1 of injured Maya Ram, doctor opined that period of injury cannot be ascertained.

9. It is further stated that in view of the aforesaid, it appears that the case of prosecution in so far as it relates to injured witnesses namely Indrajeet and Maya Ram is concocted one as the injury reports could be fake.

10. It is further stated that before the trial court, informant/Harish Kumar, injured/Maya Ram and injured/Indrajeet have already been examined and a perusal of statements of these witnesses annexed with short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the private opposite parties on record would indicate that these witnesses including the injured witnesses improved the basic/original story of prosecution, as per which, role was assigned to co- accused/Kuldeep Verma and also co-accused/Punai Lal and therefore, their statements are subject to further evidence adduced by the prosecution and also the defence during trial.

11. It is further stated that as the main witnesses of fact except injured/Suresh have already been examined before the trial court and therefore, there is no chance of influencing the main witnesses of fact of prosecution.

12. It is also stated that in the aforesaid background of the case, the appellant, aged about 65 years, who has been implicated in the instant case on account of father of co- accused/Kuldeep Verma to whom specific role has been assigned, is entitled to be released on bail. As such, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside.

13. Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the private opposite parties opposed the prayer for bail. However, they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

14. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the private opposite parties and all the relevant documents placed on record.

15. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the private opposite parties, F.I.R., impugned order, as also the statements of injured(s), injury report(s) and also that the appellant is aged about 65 years and is languishing in jail since 20.03.2025 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case and also the fact that according to basic/original story/case of prosecution co-accused namely Kuldeep Verma and Punai Lal caused fatal injuries to the deceased and subsequent improvement before the trial court , this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

16. Order dated 12.06.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 204 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 104 of 2025, under Sections- 103(1), 3(5), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 331(8), 118(1), 109(1) B.N.S. and Sections- 3(1)Da 3(1)Dha, 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Khamariya, District- Lakhimpur Kheri is hereby set aside.

17. Let the appellant- Muneem Verma 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 (one of family member/close relative) each of the like 4 CRLA No. 2459 of 2025 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. (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.

18. 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

19. 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. "

8. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel including that co- accused have already been released on bail by this Court.

9. Upon due consideration of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and the facts & circumstances of the case including the role attributed to the appellant as also that co- accused have already been released on bail by this Court and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

10. Order dated 14.07.2025, passed by Additional District and Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No.262/2025 (Computerized Case No.2186/2025), arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.104/2025, under Sections 103 (1), 3(5), 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 331(8), 118(1), 109(1) of B.N.S. and Section 3(1( (da), 3 (1)(dha), 3 (2) 5 of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Khamariya, District - Lakhimpur Kheri is hereby set aside.

11. Let the appellant - Abhay Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions :- 5 CRLA No. 2459 of 2025 (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (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 will 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.

12. 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.

13. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations 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 made in this order. November 11, 2025 ML/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench