Guruman vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the State is taken on record. Vide order dated 09.09.2025, the notices have been issued to opposite parties and as per office report, the same has been served on opposite parties nos. 2, 3 and 4. Today when the case is taken up, neither counsel on behalf of opposite parties nos. 2, 3 and 4 is present nor any counter has been filed, therefore, this Court has no option but to proceed in the matter to decide the instant appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. 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 18.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2632 of 2025, in Case Crime No. 252 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 352, 118(1), 115(2), 351(3), 109(1) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Jaidpur, District Barabanki, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has 2 CRLA No. 2834 of 2025 been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that general has been assigned to all the accused persons. No specific role is attributed to the appellant. No recovery has been made from the possession of the appellant. He next submits that as per medical report, all the injuries are simple in nature. He added that Pramod Yadav, Nand Lal, Sadgur Sharan Yadav and Kallu, having identical role to that of present appellant, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2696 of 2025 and 2694 of 2025 and, as such, the present appellant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. He next added that the appellant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 01.08.2025 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. 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 by submitting that the appellant is named in the FIR and he was involved in committing the offence alongwith other co-accused persons, therefore he 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 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 is apparent that general role is assigned to all the accused persons; no specific role is attributed to the appellant; no recovery is made made from the possession of the appellant; as per medical report, all the injuries are simple in nature; co-accused 3 CRLA No. 2834 of 2025 persons, having identical role to that of present appellant, have already been enlarged on bail; the appellant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 01.08.2025 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 and 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 18.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2632 of 2025, in Case Crime No. 252 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 352, 118(1), 115(2), 351(3), 109(1) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Jaidpur, District Barabanki, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Guruman be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond 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 4 CRLA No. 2834 of 2025 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 31, 2025 kkv/ (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the State is taken on record. Vide order dated 09.09.2025, the notices have been issued to opposite parties and as per office report, the same has been served on opposite parties nos. 2, 3 and 4. Today when the case is taken up, neither counsel on behalf of opposite parties nos. 2, 3 and 4 is present nor any counter has been filed, therefore, this Court has no option but to proceed in the matter to decide the instant appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. 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 18.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2632 of 2025, in Case Crime No. 252 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 352, 118(1), 115(2), 351(3), 109(1) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Jaidpur, District Barabanki, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has 2 CRLA No. 2834 of 2025 been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that general has been assigned to all the accused persons. No specific role is attributed to the appellant. No recovery has been made from the possession of the appellant. He next submits that as per medical report, all the injuries are simple in nature. He added that Pramod Yadav, Nand Lal, Sadgur Sharan Yadav and Kallu, having identical role to that of present appellant, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2696 of 2025 and 2694 of 2025 and, as such, the present appellant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity. He next added that the appellant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 01.08.2025 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. 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 by submitting that the appellant is named in the FIR and he was involved in committing the offence alongwith other co-accused persons, therefore he 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 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 is apparent that general role is assigned to all the accused persons; no specific role is attributed to the appellant; no recovery is made made from the possession of the appellant; as per medical report, all the injuries are simple in nature; co-accused 3 CRLA No. 2834 of 2025 persons, having identical role to that of present appellant, have already been enlarged on bail; the appellant has no criminal history and he is languishing in jail since 01.08.2025 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 and 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 18.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Barabanki in Bail Application No. 2632 of 2025, in Case Crime No. 252 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 352, 118(1), 115(2), 351(3), 109(1) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Jaidpur, District Barabanki, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Guruman be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond 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 4 CRLA No. 2834 of 2025 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 31, 2025 kkv/ (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench