Shivam Sonker vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Vide order dated 09.09.2025, the notice has been issued to opposite party no. 2 and as per office report dated 09.10.2025, the same has been served on opposite party no. 2. Today when the case is taken up, neither counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is present nor any counter on his behalf has been filed, therefore, this Court has no option but to proceed in the matter to decide the instant appeal. 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 01.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gonda in Bail Application No. 1806 of 2025, arising out of FIR No. 113 of 2025, under Sections 309(4), 64, 333, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 126(2), 316(2), 317(2), 190, 191(2) of BNS and Section 3(1)Da, Dha and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Motiganj, District Gonda, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the appellant is not named in the FIR. He next submits that the 2 CRLA No. 2849 of 2025 recovery of alleged Car was made from the possession of the co- accused, Satish Kumar Kori and key of the said Car is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of present appellant. He further submits that the co-accused, namely, Satish Kumar Kori, having graver role than that of present appellant, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.09.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 8628 of 2025 and, as such, the present appellant may also be released on bail on the ground of parity. He next submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 08.07.2025 having no criminal history to his credit. He next added that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall 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 involved in committing the offence and, as such, 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 transpires that appellant is not named in the FIR; the alleged car is said to have been recovered from the possession of the co-accused, namely, Satish Kumar Kori, who has already been enlarged on bail; the appellant is languishing in jail since 08.07.2025 having no criminal history to his credit 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. 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. 3 CRLA No. 2849 of 2025 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gonda in Bail Application No. 1806 of 2025, arising out of FIR No. 113 of 2025, under Sections 309(4), 64, 333, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 126(2), 316(2), 317(2), 190, 191(2) of BNS and Section 3(1)Da, Dha and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Motiganj, District Gonda, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Shivam Sonker be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a 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 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 4 CRLA No. 2849 of 2025 shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order. October 15, 2025 kkv/ (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Vide order dated 09.09.2025, the notice has been issued to opposite party no. 2 and as per office report dated 09.10.2025, the same has been served on opposite party no. 2. Today when the case is taken up, neither counsel on behalf of opposite party no. 2 is present nor any counter on his behalf has been filed, therefore, this Court has no option but to proceed in the matter to decide the instant appeal. 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 01.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gonda in Bail Application No. 1806 of 2025, arising out of FIR No. 113 of 2025, under Sections 309(4), 64, 333, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 126(2), 316(2), 317(2), 190, 191(2) of BNS and Section 3(1)Da, Dha and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Motiganj, District Gonda, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the appellant is not named in the FIR. He next submits that the 2 CRLA No. 2849 of 2025 recovery of alleged Car was made from the possession of the co- accused, Satish Kumar Kori and key of the said Car is alleged to have been recovered from the possession of present appellant. He further submits that the co-accused, namely, Satish Kumar Kori, having graver role than that of present appellant, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.09.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 8628 of 2025 and, as such, the present appellant may also be released on bail on the ground of parity. He next submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 08.07.2025 having no criminal history to his credit. He next added that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall 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 involved in committing the offence and, as such, 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 transpires that appellant is not named in the FIR; the alleged car is said to have been recovered from the possession of the co-accused, namely, Satish Kumar Kori, who has already been enlarged on bail; the appellant is languishing in jail since 08.07.2025 having no criminal history to his credit 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. 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. 3 CRLA No. 2849 of 2025 Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 01.08.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gonda in Bail Application No. 1806 of 2025, arising out of FIR No. 113 of 2025, under Sections 309(4), 64, 333, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 126(2), 316(2), 317(2), 190, 191(2) of BNS and Section 3(1)Da, Dha and 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, Police Station Motiganj, District Gonda, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Shivam Sonker be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a 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 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 4 CRLA No. 2849 of 2025 shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order. October 15, 2025 kkv/ (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench