Ramteerath Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Vide order dated 22.08.2025, the notices have been issued to private opposite parties and as per office report the same has been served personally upon them. Today when the case is taken up, neither counsel on behalf of private opposite parties is present nor any counter on their behalf has been filed, therefore, this Court has no option but to proceed in the matter to decide the instant 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 01.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2509 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 0165 of 2025, under Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station Mohammadpur Khala, District Barabanki, 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. He further submits that appellant has already been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.07.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal 2 CRLA No. 2602 of 2025 No. 1931 of 2025. He next submits that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer added Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act in the crime number, in which the bail application has already been allowed. He further submits that the victim was major at the time of incident and, in fact, she was in love affair with the appellant. He next submits that allegations levelled in the FIR are completely incorrect and the same could be deduced from the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS. He next submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since

24.04.2025 having no criminal history to his credit. 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 deserves to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the 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 appellant has already been enlarged on bail but during the course of investigation, Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act has also been added in this crime number; the victim was major at the time of incident and in view of submission of learned counsel, in fact, she was in love affair with the appellant; the allegations levelled against the appellant in the FIR are completely incorrect and the same could be deduced from the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS; the appellant is languishing in jail since 24.04.2025 having no criminal history to his credit 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 3 CRLA No. 2602 of 2025 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 01.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2509 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 0165 of 2025, under Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station Mohammadpur Khala, District Barabanki, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Ramteerath Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two reliable sureties relating to his family members 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.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 4 CRLA No. 2602 of 2025 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 14, 2025 kkv/ (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Vide order dated 22.08.2025, the notices have been issued to private opposite parties and as per office report the same has been served personally upon them. Today when the case is taken up, neither counsel on behalf of private opposite parties is present nor any counter on their behalf has been filed, therefore, this Court has no option but to proceed in the matter to decide the instant 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 01.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2509 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 0165 of 2025, under Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station Mohammadpur Khala, District Barabanki, 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. He further submits that appellant has already been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.07.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal 2 CRLA No. 2602 of 2025 No. 1931 of 2025. He next submits that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer added Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act in the crime number, in which the bail application has already been allowed. He further submits that the victim was major at the time of incident and, in fact, she was in love affair with the appellant. He next submits that allegations levelled in the FIR are completely incorrect and the same could be deduced from the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS. He next submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since

24.04.2025 having no criminal history to his credit. 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 deserves to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the 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 appellant has already been enlarged on bail but during the course of investigation, Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act has also been added in this crime number; the victim was major at the time of incident and in view of submission of learned counsel, in fact, she was in love affair with the appellant; the allegations levelled against the appellant in the FIR are completely incorrect and the same could be deduced from the statements of the victim recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS; the appellant is languishing in jail since 24.04.2025 having no criminal history to his credit 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 3 CRLA No. 2602 of 2025 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 01.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2509 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 0165 of 2025, under Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station Mohammadpur Khala, District Barabanki, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Ramteerath Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- and two reliable sureties relating to his family members 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.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 4 CRLA No. 2602 of 2025 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 14, 2025 kkv/ (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench