Choty v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
Case Details
HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (Crl. Misc. Application No.01 of 2025) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State. This Criminal Appeal, filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015), challenges the order dated 04.08.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur, thereby rejecting the bail application of the appellant, Rahul Dixit @ Choty, in connection with Case Crime No. 183 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Atariya, District- Sitapur. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the First Information Report (FIR), it is alleged that the informant's father, the deceased, Ishwar Deen Gautam (aged about 50 years), was living in his tubewell for looking after the field. It is alleged that the accused, Gujjoo @ Narottam Singh and Rahul Dixit, had enmity with the deceased and on 20.06.2025 at about 4 PM, the accused, Gujjoo @ Narottam Singh and Rahul Dixit, along with their companions, came to the field and threatened the informant's father with death. On 22.06.2025 in the morning, when the informant's father's niece (Rekha) went to the field situated in Village Jajaur, she found the informant's father lying dead on the cot (Charpai). It is further alleged that the informant's father was assaulted brutally using a sharp-edged weapon (Gharadar Hathiyar) by the accused, Gujjoo @ Narottam Singh, Rahul Dixit, and their companions. Learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicant, Rahul Dixit @ Choty, contended that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no eye-witness to the alleged incident. He next submits that he was named in the FIR on the basis of 2 CRLA No. 2908 of 2025 suspicion. There is no evidence in respect of the alleged offence connecting the applicant to the present case. He further submits that the confessional statement recorded by the police in police custody has no evidentiary force in the eyes of law. He also submits that no incriminating article has been recovered from his possession. The recovery of a piece of brick was falsely planted and shown near a public path, and no witness of the alleged recovery has been presented. The chain of the circumstantial evidence is not completed. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 19.07.2025. He also undertakes that if he is enlarged on bail, he will not influence the witnesses and will fully cooperate in the trial. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the applicant-accused had rivalry with the deceased. He next submits that prior to the alleged incident, the applicant-accused, along with other co-accused (Gujjoo @ Narottam Singh), threatened the deceased with death on
20.06.2025. He next submits that the applicant-accused is named in the FIR. He further submits that the applicant-accused has given a confessional statement that he has committed the offence. He has committed the offence alleged against him. He also submits that on the pointing out of the applicant-accused, the weapon, which is a piece of brick, has been recovered. He further submits that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will definitely influence the witnesses and affect the trial. After having heard the rival contentions of both the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the alleged incident is said to have occurred on 22.06.2025 while the FIR was lodged on 22.06.2025 but regarding the prior threat given on 20.06.2025, preserve of any public witness is not mentioned in the FIR. The applicant-accused is named in the FIR on the basis of suspicion. As per the FIR, the deceased was assaulted by a sharp-edged weapon (Dharadar Hathiyar), while a piece of brick is said to have been recovered at the pointing out of the applicant- accused, but no public witness was procured at the time of this recovery. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer did not find any eye-witness of the alleged incident and primarily relied on circumstantial evidence and the confessional statement recorded under police custody of the accused, which has no evidentiary value. No evidence of the last seen together was found by the I.O. The applicant has no criminal history except the present case. The Applicant is languishing in jail since 19.07.2025. Considering the totality of the facts, circumstances and evidence collected during investigation and the fact that the appellant has no criminal history except the present case, and the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant (since 19.07.2025), this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. 3 CRLA No. 2908 of 2025 In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur, is set aside. Let the appellant- Rahul Dixit @ Choty, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 183 of 2025 on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the 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. (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. 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. December 10, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (Crl. Misc. Application No.01 of 2025) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State. This Criminal Appeal, filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015), challenges the order dated 04.08.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur, thereby rejecting the bail application of the appellant, Rahul Dixit @ Choty, in connection with Case Crime No. 183 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Atariya, District- Sitapur. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the First Information Report (FIR), it is alleged that the informant's father, the deceased, Ishwar Deen Gautam (aged about 50 years), was living in his tubewell for looking after the field. It is alleged that the accused, Gujjoo @ Narottam Singh and Rahul Dixit, had enmity with the deceased and on 20.06.2025 at about 4 PM, the accused, Gujjoo @ Narottam Singh and Rahul Dixit, along with their companions, came to the field and threatened the informant's father with death. On 22.06.2025 in the morning, when the informant's father's niece (Rekha) went to the field situated in Village Jajaur, she found the informant's father lying dead on the cot (Charpai). It is further alleged that the informant's father was assaulted brutally using a sharp-edged weapon (Gharadar Hathiyar) by the accused, Gujjoo @ Narottam Singh, Rahul Dixit, and their companions. Learned counsel appearing for the accused/applicant, Rahul Dixit @ Choty, contended that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no eye-witness to the alleged incident. He next submits that he was named in the FIR on the basis of 2 CRLA No. 2908 of 2025 suspicion. There is no evidence in respect of the alleged offence connecting the applicant to the present case. He further submits that the confessional statement recorded by the police in police custody has no evidentiary force in the eyes of law. He also submits that no incriminating article has been recovered from his possession. The recovery of a piece of brick was falsely planted and shown near a public path, and no witness of the alleged recovery has been presented. The chain of the circumstantial evidence is not completed. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 19.07.2025. He also undertakes that if he is enlarged on bail, he will not influence the witnesses and will fully cooperate in the trial. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the applicant-accused had rivalry with the deceased. He next submits that prior to the alleged incident, the applicant-accused, along with other co-accused (Gujjoo @ Narottam Singh), threatened the deceased with death on
20.06.2025. He next submits that the applicant-accused is named in the FIR. He further submits that the applicant-accused has given a confessional statement that he has committed the offence. He has committed the offence alleged against him. He also submits that on the pointing out of the applicant-accused, the weapon, which is a piece of brick, has been recovered. He further submits that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he will definitely influence the witnesses and affect the trial. After having heard the rival contentions of both the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the alleged incident is said to have occurred on 22.06.2025 while the FIR was lodged on 22.06.2025 but regarding the prior threat given on 20.06.2025, preserve of any public witness is not mentioned in the FIR. The applicant-accused is named in the FIR on the basis of suspicion. As per the FIR, the deceased was assaulted by a sharp-edged weapon (Dharadar Hathiyar), while a piece of brick is said to have been recovered at the pointing out of the applicant- accused, but no public witness was procured at the time of this recovery. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer did not find any eye-witness of the alleged incident and primarily relied on circumstantial evidence and the confessional statement recorded under police custody of the accused, which has no evidentiary value. No evidence of the last seen together was found by the I.O. The applicant has no criminal history except the present case. The Applicant is languishing in jail since 19.07.2025. Considering the totality of the facts, circumstances and evidence collected during investigation and the fact that the appellant has no criminal history except the present case, and the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant (since 19.07.2025), this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. 3 CRLA No. 2908 of 2025 In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur, is set aside. Let the appellant- Rahul Dixit @ Choty, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 183 of 2025 on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the 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. (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. 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. December 10, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench