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

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. As per the report of the I/C C.J.M. Pratapgarh dated 12.09.2015, notice has been served upon the opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 and as per report of the I/C C.J.M. Pratapgarh dated 06.06.2025, service of notice is sufficient upon private opposite party i.e. opposite party No.2, 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 19.09.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Misc. Bail Application No. 2103/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 0079/2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307 and 302 I.P.C. and under Sections 3(1) (Da), 3(1) (Dha), 3(2) V, 3 (2) Va of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kohdaur, District Pratapgarh, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the complainant, Savitri Devi, lodged an F.I.R. stating that there was a land dispute between the family of the informant and Girdhari Lal. On 12.06.2024 at about 11:30 2 CRLA No. 3138 of 2024 P.M., the daughter of Girdhari called the appellant-Pankaj Yadav, Piyush Yadav, Sonu Harijan, and Karan Harijan. These persons abused the family members of the informant and, with the intention to kill, assaulted Rajendra Kumar, Harilal, and Payal with lathis, sticks, kicks, and fists. As a result of the assault, Rajendra Kumar, Harilal, and Payal sustained serious injuries. All the injured were taken to the District Hospital, Pratapgarh, from where Rajendra Kumar was referred to S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj. During the course of treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on

20.06.2024.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits he has falsely been implicated. The whole prosecution story is false, fabricated and concocted. He next submits that the F.I.R. was lodged after eight days of the alleged incident and no plausible explanation has been offered. He further submits that the alleged incident is said to have taken place in the night, but there is no source of light is mentioned in the F.I.R. No specific role of the appellant has been attributed in the F.I.R. and nothing incriminating article has been recovered on the instance of the appellant.

7.Learned counsel for the appellant further submits in the autopsy report of the deceased-Rajendra Kumar, three injuries were found on the body of the deceased and prior to that no medical examination report of the deceased was prepared and the cause of death was found due to septicemic shock, which was due to infection in both lungs followed by ante mortem injures. He also submits that the deceased was chronic patient of stomach, for which he was operated, due to post operational infection, he died and due to enmity, the appellant has been falsely indulged in this case.

8. Learned counsel appellant further submits accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 04.07.2024, 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 3 CRLA No. 3138 of 2024 order dated 19.09.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Misc. Bail Application No. 2103/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 00 79/2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307 and 302 I.P.C. and under Sections 3(1) (Da), 3(1) (Dha), 3(2) V, 3 (2) Va of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kohdaur, District Pratapgarh 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 appellant along with other co-accused persons inflicted blows to the deceased and other injured persons through iron rod, lathi-danda. He further submits that all the injured persons have specifically stated that the appellant along with other co-accused brutally beaten the deceased and other injured persons. He further submits that as per the autopsy report of the deceased, he died due to infection followed by ante-mortem injury, which was caused by the accused persons. He also submits that the doctor who conducted the post- mortem has stated that it appears that the deceased was operated due to intestinal ailment, which was caused due to infliction of the blows. He 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 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 the perusal of the material available on record, it transpires that the alleged incident is to be happened on 12.06.2024 while the F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of 8 days on 21.06.2024. From the averments mentioned in the F.I.R., it appears that a scuffle had taken place between the accused persons and the family members of the complainant. The Investigating Officer has recorded statement of Hari Lal, Govind as eye- witness, wherein they have stated that the accused persons inflicted blows with lathis, iron rods, and also assaulted them with kicks and fists. No specific role of the appellant has been narrated by them. Apart from this, it also transpires that on the previous date 19.05.2025, this Court has 4 CRLA No. 3138 of 2024 made some query in respect of the opinion of the doctor given in the autopsy report of the deceased. As per autopsy report, it is opined that the cause of death is Septicemic shock due to infection in both lungs followed by ante mortem injuries, in this respect the Circle Officer, Pratapgarh has also written a letter to the S.R.N. Hospital for clarification, but no such clarification has been submitted; the doctor Rajiv Ranjan, who had conducted the autopsy of the deceased has stated that the intestine of the deceased was operated, which was done due to obstruction in the motion of fecal matters. He also stated that during that period infection spread and deceased died and injuries on the intestine was due to assault, as it do not reveal that apparent proximate cause of the death and considering the manner and mode of alleged occurrence as well as the fact that the appellant is in jail since 04.07.2024 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 order dated 19.09.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Misc. Bail Application No. 2103/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 0079/2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307 and 302 I.P.C. and under Sections 3(1) (Da), 3(1) (Dha), 3(2) V, 3 (2) Va of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kohdaur, District Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant-Pankaj Yadav 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 trial (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. 5 CRLA No. 3138 of 2024 (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.

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

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. As per the report of the I/C C.J.M. Pratapgarh dated 12.09.2015, notice has been served upon the opposite party Nos. 3 to 6 and as per report of the I/C C.J.M. Pratapgarh dated 06.06.2025, service of notice is sufficient upon private opposite party i.e. opposite party No.2, 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 19.09.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Misc. Bail Application No. 2103/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 0079/2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307 and 302 I.P.C. and under Sections 3(1) (Da), 3(1) (Dha), 3(2) V, 3 (2) Va of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kohdaur, District Pratapgarh, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the complainant, Savitri Devi, lodged an F.I.R. stating that there was a land dispute between the family of the informant and Girdhari Lal. On 12.06.2024 at about 11:30 2 CRLA No. 3138 of 2024 P.M., the daughter of Girdhari called the appellant-Pankaj Yadav, Piyush Yadav, Sonu Harijan, and Karan Harijan. These persons abused the family members of the informant and, with the intention to kill, assaulted Rajendra Kumar, Harilal, and Payal with lathis, sticks, kicks, and fists. As a result of the assault, Rajendra Kumar, Harilal, and Payal sustained serious injuries. All the injured were taken to the District Hospital, Pratapgarh, from where Rajendra Kumar was referred to S.R.N. Hospital, Prayagraj. During the course of treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on

20.06.2024.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits he has falsely been implicated. The whole prosecution story is false, fabricated and concocted. He next submits that the F.I.R. was lodged after eight days of the alleged incident and no plausible explanation has been offered. He further submits that the alleged incident is said to have taken place in the night, but there is no source of light is mentioned in the F.I.R. No specific role of the appellant has been attributed in the F.I.R. and nothing incriminating article has been recovered on the instance of the appellant.

7.Learned counsel for the appellant further submits in the autopsy report of the deceased-Rajendra Kumar, three injuries were found on the body of the deceased and prior to that no medical examination report of the deceased was prepared and the cause of death was found due to septicemic shock, which was due to infection in both lungs followed by ante mortem injures. He also submits that the deceased was chronic patient of stomach, for which he was operated, due to post operational infection, he died and due to enmity, the appellant has been falsely indulged in this case.

8. Learned counsel appellant further submits accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 04.07.2024, 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 3 CRLA No. 3138 of 2024 order dated 19.09.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Misc. Bail Application No. 2103/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 00 79/2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307 and 302 I.P.C. and under Sections 3(1) (Da), 3(1) (Dha), 3(2) V, 3 (2) Va of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kohdaur, District Pratapgarh 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 appellant along with other co-accused persons inflicted blows to the deceased and other injured persons through iron rod, lathi-danda. He further submits that all the injured persons have specifically stated that the appellant along with other co-accused brutally beaten the deceased and other injured persons. He further submits that as per the autopsy report of the deceased, he died due to infection followed by ante-mortem injury, which was caused by the accused persons. He also submits that the doctor who conducted the post- mortem has stated that it appears that the deceased was operated due to intestinal ailment, which was caused due to infliction of the blows. He 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 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 the perusal of the material available on record, it transpires that the alleged incident is to be happened on 12.06.2024 while the F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of 8 days on 21.06.2024. From the averments mentioned in the F.I.R., it appears that a scuffle had taken place between the accused persons and the family members of the complainant. The Investigating Officer has recorded statement of Hari Lal, Govind as eye- witness, wherein they have stated that the accused persons inflicted blows with lathis, iron rods, and also assaulted them with kicks and fists. No specific role of the appellant has been narrated by them. Apart from this, it also transpires that on the previous date 19.05.2025, this Court has 4 CRLA No. 3138 of 2024 made some query in respect of the opinion of the doctor given in the autopsy report of the deceased. As per autopsy report, it is opined that the cause of death is Septicemic shock due to infection in both lungs followed by ante mortem injuries, in this respect the Circle Officer, Pratapgarh has also written a letter to the S.R.N. Hospital for clarification, but no such clarification has been submitted; the doctor Rajiv Ranjan, who had conducted the autopsy of the deceased has stated that the intestine of the deceased was operated, which was done due to obstruction in the motion of fecal matters. He also stated that during that period infection spread and deceased died and injuries on the intestine was due to assault, as it do not reveal that apparent proximate cause of the death and considering the manner and mode of alleged occurrence as well as the fact that the appellant is in jail since 04.07.2024 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 order dated 19.09.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Misc. Bail Application No. 2103/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 0079/2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 307 and 302 I.P.C. and under Sections 3(1) (Da), 3(1) (Dha), 3(2) V, 3 (2) Va of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kohdaur, District Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant-Pankaj Yadav 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 trial (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. 5 CRLA No. 3138 of 2024 (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.

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