Kaleem v. State of U.P. and others), arising out of Case Crime No

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

2. Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit in reply thereto learned counsel for the appellant has filed rejoinder affidavit today in Court. The same is taken on record.

3. As per the report dated 25.09.2025 notice has been served upon the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, but till date neither any counsel has appeared on their behalf nor counter affidavit has been filed, it appears that they are not interested to file any counter affidavit.

4. 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.

5. 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 11.08.2025 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2548 of 2025 (Kaleem Vs. State of U.P. and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 462/2025, under Section 3(5), 115(2), 109(1), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3(2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagart, District Barabanki, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely 2 CRLA No. 2723 of 2025 been implicated in the present case. The F.I.R. has been lodged after inordinate delay. There is no independent witness mentioned in the F.I.R. He further submits that, as per the F.I.R., there was a scuffle between the two groups. There is no motive to inflict injuries to the injured, as mentioned in the F.I.R.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per medical report of the injured Anoop Kumar, the injury was simple in nature. In CT Scan report fracture is noted of right lamina payracea.

8. Learned counsel appellant further submits accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 11.08.2025, who has no previous criminal history, and in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall also 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.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated

11.08.2025 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2548 of 2025 (Kaleem Vs. State of U.P. and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 462/2025, under Section 3(5), 115(2), 109(1), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3(2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagart, District Barabanki deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant is named in the F.I.R.. The specific role of the appellant has been assigned in the statement of the injured. As per the injured’s statement, the appellant threw a piece of brick and stone at him, causing the injuries. As per statement of the injured, the appellant has thrown stone on the injured, then he sustained injuries, which was found fracture in the CT Scan report. Learned A.G.A. further submits 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 3 CRLA No. 2723 of 2025 the accused/appellant.

11. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. and considering the facts and circumstance of the case and on perusal of the record, it appears that F.I.R. has been lodged after one day of the alleged incident. As per the F.I.R., there was a scuffle between the two groups, and they were throwing bricks and stone at each other. When the injured was passing by, one of the stone hit him on the head; as per medical report the injury was found simple in nature and in the C.T. Scan report, it was found fracture as well as the fact that the appellant is in jail since 11.08.2025 without having any criminal history and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 11.08.2025 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2548 of 2025 (Kaleem Vs. State of U.P. and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 462/2025, under Section 3(5), 115(2), 109(1), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3(2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagart, District Barabanki is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant-Kaleem 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 (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate 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 4 CRLA No. 2723 of 2025 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.

14. 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

15. 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 15, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

2. Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit in reply thereto learned counsel for the appellant has filed rejoinder affidavit today in Court. The same is taken on record.

3. As per the report dated 25.09.2025 notice has been served upon the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, but till date neither any counsel has appeared on their behalf nor counter affidavit has been filed, it appears that they are not interested to file any counter affidavit.

4. 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.

5. 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 11.08.2025 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2548 of 2025 (Kaleem Vs. State of U.P. and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 462/2025, under Section 3(5), 115(2), 109(1), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3(2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagart, District Barabanki, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely 2 CRLA No. 2723 of 2025 been implicated in the present case. The F.I.R. has been lodged after inordinate delay. There is no independent witness mentioned in the F.I.R. He further submits that, as per the F.I.R., there was a scuffle between the two groups. There is no motive to inflict injuries to the injured, as mentioned in the F.I.R.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per medical report of the injured Anoop Kumar, the injury was simple in nature. In CT Scan report fracture is noted of right lamina payracea.

8. Learned counsel appellant further submits accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 11.08.2025, who has no previous criminal history, and in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall also 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.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated

11.08.2025 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2548 of 2025 (Kaleem Vs. State of U.P. and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 462/2025, under Section 3(5), 115(2), 109(1), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3(2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagart, District Barabanki deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant is named in the F.I.R.. The specific role of the appellant has been assigned in the statement of the injured. As per the injured’s statement, the appellant threw a piece of brick and stone at him, causing the injuries. As per statement of the injured, the appellant has thrown stone on the injured, then he sustained injuries, which was found fracture in the CT Scan report. Learned A.G.A. further submits 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 3 CRLA No. 2723 of 2025 the accused/appellant.

11. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. and considering the facts and circumstance of the case and on perusal of the record, it appears that F.I.R. has been lodged after one day of the alleged incident. As per the F.I.R., there was a scuffle between the two groups, and they were throwing bricks and stone at each other. When the injured was passing by, one of the stone hit him on the head; as per medical report the injury was found simple in nature and in the C.T. Scan report, it was found fracture as well as the fact that the appellant is in jail since 11.08.2025 without having any criminal history and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 11.08.2025 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act) Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2548 of 2025 (Kaleem Vs. State of U.P. and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 462/2025, under Section 3(5), 115(2), 109(1), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 3(1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3(2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagart, District Barabanki is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant-Kaleem 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 (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate 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 4 CRLA No. 2723 of 2025 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.

14. 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

15. 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 15, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench