Pancham v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko And Another

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (Crl. Misc. Application No.1 of 2025) Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This 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 31.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District-Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the bail application of the appellant was rejected in Case Crime No. 1206 of 2008, Under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Maigalganj, District-Lakhimpur Kheri. Learned counsel for the appellant, Pancham son of Balak Ram Arakh, submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 1206 of 2008, registered under Sections 323,325,504,506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Maigalganj. The appellant is an old person, aged about 67 years, who has no criminal history and has been languishing in jail since 20.07.2025 following the rejection of his bail application by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) vide order dated

31.07.2025. The Trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application without appreciating that the investigating officer found no evidence regarding the offence of Loot and that there is no specific allegation or evidence regarding atrocity under the SC/ST Act against the appellant in the charge sheet. He further submits that the appellant was previously on bail and was participating in the trial proceedings. His subsequent non-appearance was not deliberate but arose from a misconception that the case would conclude following the death of the complainant (Raj Kumar) and another witness (Jalim Yadav). The appellant, being an illiterate and old villager, now undertakes to appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and will not misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any 2 CRLA No. 2739 of 2025 evidence/witnesses. Given the case is old (2008) and the applicant's undertaking, he deserves to be enlarged on bail pending the appeal. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant Pancham submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated

31.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri, in the matter arising out of Case Crime No. 1206 of 2008, under Sections 323, 325,504,506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Maigalganj, District Lakhimpur Kheri, deserves to be set aside, and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal/trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that the appellant, Pancham, committed a serious offence under Sections 323,325,504,506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against a member of the Scheduled Caste community. They asserted that the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri, rightly found the gravity of the crime to warrant the dismissal of the bail rejection appeal through its order dated 31.07.2025. The learned A.G.A. further submits that the appellant has been absent from the trial proceedings for a long time and was arrested pursuant to a non-bailable warrant, which indicates his deliberate intention to obstruct the trial and misuse the liberty of bail. The case is old, dating back to 2008, and is currently pending trial. Furthermore, the Medico-Legal Examination Report confirms that the complainant, Raj Kumar, did sustain injuries, including a fracture of the 5th Metacarpal Bone and a contusion on the right hand. He further submits that considering the seriousness of the offence under the SC/ST Act and the long absence of the appellant, the appeal deserves dismissal. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant Pancham and learned A.G.A., this Court notes that the F.I.R. relates to an incident that occurred in 2008 and is primarily based on Sections 323,325,504,506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act. The Court notes that the injury sustained by the complainant, Raj Kumar, was confirmed by the Medico-Legal Examination Report, which includes a fracture of the 5th Metacarpal Bone. However, the Court also notes the appellant's submissions that the investigating officer found no evidence regarding the offence of Loot and that the chargesheet lacks specific evidence relating to the element of atrocity under the SC/ST Act. It is further noted that the appellant, an old person, aged about 67 years, with no criminal history, has been in jail since 20.07.2025 and his non-appearance in the past was purportedly based on the misconception that the case would conclude following the death of the complainant and another witness. Without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, and considering the appellant's undertaking to appear on every date, this 3 CRLA No. 2739 of 2025 Court is of the view that the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated

31.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri, arising out of Case Crime No. 1206 of 2008, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Maigalganj, District Lakhimpur Kheri, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant- Pancham son of Balak Ram Arakh, 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 relating to his family members 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 tria. (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 9, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.)

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (Crl. Misc. Application No.1 of 2025) Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This 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 31.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District-Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the bail application of the appellant was rejected in Case Crime No. 1206 of 2008, Under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Maigalganj, District-Lakhimpur Kheri. Learned counsel for the appellant, Pancham son of Balak Ram Arakh, submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 1206 of 2008, registered under Sections 323,325,504,506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Maigalganj. The appellant is an old person, aged about 67 years, who has no criminal history and has been languishing in jail since 20.07.2025 following the rejection of his bail application by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) vide order dated

31.07.2025. The Trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application without appreciating that the investigating officer found no evidence regarding the offence of Loot and that there is no specific allegation or evidence regarding atrocity under the SC/ST Act against the appellant in the charge sheet. He further submits that the appellant was previously on bail and was participating in the trial proceedings. His subsequent non-appearance was not deliberate but arose from a misconception that the case would conclude following the death of the complainant (Raj Kumar) and another witness (Jalim Yadav). The appellant, being an illiterate and old villager, now undertakes to appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and will not misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any 2 CRLA No. 2739 of 2025 evidence/witnesses. Given the case is old (2008) and the applicant's undertaking, he deserves to be enlarged on bail pending the appeal. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant Pancham submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated

31.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri, in the matter arising out of Case Crime No. 1206 of 2008, under Sections 323, 325,504,506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Maigalganj, District Lakhimpur Kheri, deserves to be set aside, and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the appeal/trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that the appellant, Pancham, committed a serious offence under Sections 323,325,504,506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against a member of the Scheduled Caste community. They asserted that the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri, rightly found the gravity of the crime to warrant the dismissal of the bail rejection appeal through its order dated 31.07.2025. The learned A.G.A. further submits that the appellant has been absent from the trial proceedings for a long time and was arrested pursuant to a non-bailable warrant, which indicates his deliberate intention to obstruct the trial and misuse the liberty of bail. The case is old, dating back to 2008, and is currently pending trial. Furthermore, the Medico-Legal Examination Report confirms that the complainant, Raj Kumar, did sustain injuries, including a fracture of the 5th Metacarpal Bone and a contusion on the right hand. He further submits that considering the seriousness of the offence under the SC/ST Act and the long absence of the appellant, the appeal deserves dismissal. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant Pancham and learned A.G.A., this Court notes that the F.I.R. relates to an incident that occurred in 2008 and is primarily based on Sections 323,325,504,506 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act. The Court notes that the injury sustained by the complainant, Raj Kumar, was confirmed by the Medico-Legal Examination Report, which includes a fracture of the 5th Metacarpal Bone. However, the Court also notes the appellant's submissions that the investigating officer found no evidence regarding the offence of Loot and that the chargesheet lacks specific evidence relating to the element of atrocity under the SC/ST Act. It is further noted that the appellant, an old person, aged about 67 years, with no criminal history, has been in jail since 20.07.2025 and his non-appearance in the past was purportedly based on the misconception that the case would conclude following the death of the complainant and another witness. Without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, and considering the appellant's undertaking to appear on every date, this 3 CRLA No. 2739 of 2025 Court is of the view that the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated

31.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri, arising out of Case Crime No. 1206 of 2008, under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Maigalganj, District Lakhimpur Kheri, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant- Pancham son of Balak Ram Arakh, 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 relating to his family members 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 tria. (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 9, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.)