Arun Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned orders dated 22.08.2025 and 28.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gonda in Bail Application Nos. 2051/2025 and 2165 of 2025 respectively, arising out of Crime No. 271/2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352, 351(2), 191(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3 (1) (Dha), 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST Act, 1989, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda, whereby the bail applications of the appellant have been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per F.I.R, the case of the complainant is that an agreement to sell of the property in question was executed and got registered by one Bittu Devi in his favour and thereafter by Bittu Devi another agreement to sell was executed and registered in favour of appellant. Thereafter they conspired and that property was transferred in favour of Rajiv Kumar Singh and registered sale deed was also executed in his favour.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The land in question was sold by Bittu Devi and he is a purchaser and the case is purely civil in nature. by 2 CRLA No. 2784 of 2025 lodging the instant F.I.R., the colour of criminality has been given. He next submits that initially an agreement to sell was got registered by Bittu Devi in favour of complainant on 07.04.2022 for one year and it was also decided that the complaint get sale deed executed in his faour by Bittu Devi, but within one month Bittu Devi filed a Civil Suit for cancellation of agreement to sell dated 07.04.2022 and also filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He next submits that the complainant also filed a suit for declaration under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code and the same was dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that Bittu Devi also executed another agreement to sell dated 29.04.2024 in favour of Rajiv Kumar Singh.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the contents of the F.I.R. did not constitute criminal case and due to frustration, the complainant has filed the instant F.I.R.. He further submits that the appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste category, Therefore, no offence under the provisions of the S.C./S.T. Act is made out against the appellant.

7. Learned counsel appellant further submits accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 13.08.2025, 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.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the orders dated 22.08.2025 and 28.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gonda in Bail Application Nos. 2051/2025 and 2165 of 2025 respectively, arising out of Crime No. 271/2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352, 351(2), 191(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3 (1) (Dha), 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST Act, 1989, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda deserve to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial. 3 CRLA No. 2784 of 2025

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant committed fraud and deceive to the complainant. They next submit that Bittu Devi had sold the land in question to the complainant. They also submit that the appellant with other co-accused after conspiracy fraudulently got transferred the land in question in his favour and no amount, which was taken from the complainant, was returned to him. They further submit 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.

10. 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 material available on record, it tranpires that the pith and substance of the prosecution story is that a piece of land was firstly sold to the complainant and agreement to sell was registered in his favour by Bittu Devi and thereafter Bittu Devi had sold the same to another person and agreement to sell was got registered in favour of the appellant and finally the property was transferred in favour of Rajiv Kumar Singh. The complainant has given the consideration of Rs. 18 lacs, which was paid in different dates by different amount, but the land in question was not finally executed in favour of the complainant, hence he filed the F.I.R.., thus the contents mentioned in the F.I.R. constitutes the dispute of civil nature, while the case has been given a criminal colour by lodging the F.I.R. and considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since

13.08.2025 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 orders passed by the court below are liable to be set aside.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 22.08.2025 and 28.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gonda in Bail Application Nos. 2051/2025 and 2165 of 2025 respectively, arising out of Crime No. 271/2025, under Sections 316(2), 4 CRLA No. 2784 of 2025 318(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352, 351(2), 191(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3 (1) (Dha), 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST Act, 1989, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda are hereby set aside.

12. Let the appellant-Arun Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 (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 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.

13. 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

14. 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 13, 2025/Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned orders dated 22.08.2025 and 28.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gonda in Bail Application Nos. 2051/2025 and 2165 of 2025 respectively, arising out of Crime No. 271/2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352, 351(2), 191(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3 (1) (Dha), 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST Act, 1989, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda, whereby the bail applications of the appellant have been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per F.I.R, the case of the complainant is that an agreement to sell of the property in question was executed and got registered by one Bittu Devi in his favour and thereafter by Bittu Devi another agreement to sell was executed and registered in favour of appellant. Thereafter they conspired and that property was transferred in favour of Rajiv Kumar Singh and registered sale deed was also executed in his favour.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that he has falsely been implicated in the present case. The land in question was sold by Bittu Devi and he is a purchaser and the case is purely civil in nature. by 2 CRLA No. 2784 of 2025 lodging the instant F.I.R., the colour of criminality has been given. He next submits that initially an agreement to sell was got registered by Bittu Devi in favour of complainant on 07.04.2022 for one year and it was also decided that the complaint get sale deed executed in his faour by Bittu Devi, but within one month Bittu Devi filed a Civil Suit for cancellation of agreement to sell dated 07.04.2022 and also filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. He next submits that the complainant also filed a suit for declaration under Section 144 of U.P. Revenue Code and the same was dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that Bittu Devi also executed another agreement to sell dated 29.04.2024 in favour of Rajiv Kumar Singh.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the contents of the F.I.R. did not constitute criminal case and due to frustration, the complainant has filed the instant F.I.R.. He further submits that the appellant belongs to Scheduled Caste category, Therefore, no offence under the provisions of the S.C./S.T. Act is made out against the appellant.

7. Learned counsel appellant further submits accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 13.08.2025, 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.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the orders dated 22.08.2025 and 28.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gonda in Bail Application Nos. 2051/2025 and 2165 of 2025 respectively, arising out of Crime No. 271/2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352, 351(2), 191(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3 (1) (Dha), 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST Act, 1989, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda deserve to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial. 3 CRLA No. 2784 of 2025

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant committed fraud and deceive to the complainant. They next submit that Bittu Devi had sold the land in question to the complainant. They also submit that the appellant with other co-accused after conspiracy fraudulently got transferred the land in question in his favour and no amount, which was taken from the complainant, was returned to him. They further submit 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.

10. 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 material available on record, it tranpires that the pith and substance of the prosecution story is that a piece of land was firstly sold to the complainant and agreement to sell was registered in his favour by Bittu Devi and thereafter Bittu Devi had sold the same to another person and agreement to sell was got registered in favour of the appellant and finally the property was transferred in favour of Rajiv Kumar Singh. The complainant has given the consideration of Rs. 18 lacs, which was paid in different dates by different amount, but the land in question was not finally executed in favour of the complainant, hence he filed the F.I.R.., thus the contents mentioned in the F.I.R. constitutes the dispute of civil nature, while the case has been given a criminal colour by lodging the F.I.R. and considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since

13.08.2025 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 orders passed by the court below are liable to be set aside.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 22.08.2025 and 28.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gonda in Bail Application Nos. 2051/2025 and 2165 of 2025 respectively, arising out of Crime No. 271/2025, under Sections 316(2), 4 CRLA No. 2784 of 2025 318(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352, 351(2), 191(2) of B.N.S. and Section 3 (1) (Dha), 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST Act, 1989, Police Station Nawabganj, District Gonda are hereby set aside.

12. Let the appellant-Arun Kumar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on 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 (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 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.

13. 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

14. 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 13, 2025/Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench