Suraj v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another

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

3. 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

12.06.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ayodhya in Bail Application No.958/2025, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.290 of 2025, under Sections 140(4), 115(2), 351(3) of B.N.S., at Police Station - Poora Kalandar, District - Ayodhya/Faizabad whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

4. While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant who has no criminal history and is in jail since 13.05.2025 is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

5. He further stated that co-accused namely Rajesh Kumar has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 30.10.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No.2646 of 2025. Copy of bail order of co-accused Rajesh Kumar placed before this Court for perusal of the Court. In these circumstances, the appellant is also entitled to 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.

6. Relevant portion of the order dated 30.10.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No.2646 of 2025 on reproduction reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused 2 CRLA No. 2577 of 2025 the record. Learned AG.A. has filed counter affidavit today in Court, the same is taken on record. As per the office report dated 23.09.2025 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 their 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

09.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No. 976/2025 (Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another) arising out of Case Crime No.290/2025, under Sections 140(4), 115(2), 351(3) of B.N.S. & Section 3(2) V of SC/ST Act Police Station Poorakalandar, District Ayodhya/Faizabad, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. The prosecution story is false and concocted. There is no independent witness mentioned in the F.I.R. There is enmity between the parties in respect of fair price shop. He further submits that the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of interested witnesses. The prosecution version is highly improbable. He next submits that there is history of one criminal case of gambling. 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 there is no independent witness mentioned in the F.I.R.; the prosecution version is highly improbable; the appellant is languishing in jail since 16.05.2025 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 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 09.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No. 976/2025 (Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another) arising out of Case Crime No.290/2025, 3 CRLA No. 2577 of 2025 under Sections 140(4), 115(2), 351(3) of B.N.S. & Section 3(2) V of SC/ST Act Police Station Poorakalandar, District Ayodhya/Faizabad, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Rajesh Kumar 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 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 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 of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order."

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Order dated 12.06.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No.958/2025, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.290 of 2025, under Sections 140(4), 115(2), 351(3) of B.N.S., at Police Station - Poora Kalandar, District - Ayodhya is hereby set aside.

10. Let the appellant - Suraj 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 4 CRLA No. 2577 of 2025 conditions :- (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.

11. 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.

12. 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

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

3. 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

12.06.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ayodhya in Bail Application No.958/2025, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.290 of 2025, under Sections 140(4), 115(2), 351(3) of B.N.S., at Police Station - Poora Kalandar, District - Ayodhya/Faizabad whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

4. While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant who has no criminal history and is in jail since 13.05.2025 is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

5. He further stated that co-accused namely Rajesh Kumar has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 30.10.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No.2646 of 2025. Copy of bail order of co-accused Rajesh Kumar placed before this Court for perusal of the Court. In these circumstances, the appellant is also entitled to 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.

6. Relevant portion of the order dated 30.10.2025, passed in Criminal Appeal No.2646 of 2025 on reproduction reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused 2 CRLA No. 2577 of 2025 the record. Learned AG.A. has filed counter affidavit today in Court, the same is taken on record. As per the office report dated 23.09.2025 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 their 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

09.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No. 976/2025 (Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another) arising out of Case Crime No.290/2025, under Sections 140(4), 115(2), 351(3) of B.N.S. & Section 3(2) V of SC/ST Act Police Station Poorakalandar, District Ayodhya/Faizabad, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. The prosecution story is false and concocted. There is no independent witness mentioned in the F.I.R. There is enmity between the parties in respect of fair price shop. He further submits that the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of interested witnesses. The prosecution version is highly improbable. He next submits that there is history of one criminal case of gambling. 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 there is no independent witness mentioned in the F.I.R.; the prosecution version is highly improbable; the appellant is languishing in jail since 16.05.2025 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 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 09.06.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No. 976/2025 (Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another) arising out of Case Crime No.290/2025, 3 CRLA No. 2577 of 2025 under Sections 140(4), 115(2), 351(3) of B.N.S. & Section 3(2) V of SC/ST Act Police Station Poorakalandar, District Ayodhya/Faizabad, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Rajesh Kumar 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 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 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 of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order."

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. Order dated 12.06.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application No.958/2025, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.290 of 2025, under Sections 140(4), 115(2), 351(3) of B.N.S., at Police Station - Poora Kalandar, District - Ayodhya is hereby set aside.

10. Let the appellant - Suraj 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 4 CRLA No. 2577 of 2025 conditions :- (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.

11. 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.

12. 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