Nanhu vs Counsel for Appellant(s)

1. As per Officer report dated 09.10.2025, the service of notice upon opposite party No.2 is sufficient. Today, when the case called out, no one appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 to oppose the present bail appeal. In this background of the case, this Court proceeded to decide the appeal on merits.

2. By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the impugned orders dated 19.08.2025 and 02.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No. 256 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 305 of 2024 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Mishrikh, District-Sitapur.

3. It is stated that the appellant, aged about 75 years, , is in jail since 04.08.2025 and has falsely been implicated in the present case by co-accused Manish Kumar Maurya and Ankit.

4. It is also stated that co-accused Manish Kumar Maurya has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1213 of 2025.

5. Further stated that a perusal of the statement of co-accused Ankit, annexed as Annexure No. 8 to the present appeal, would indicate that the appellant is a victim of conspiracy of co-accused Ankit and Manish Kumar Maurya, according to which, the face of the appellant resembles with the face of actual owner of the property transferred through sale deed registered on

24.06.2024 in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Sitapur, namely Sattu S/o Bhoopai and both the co-accused therefore conspired and prepared a forged 2 CRLA No. 2875 of 2025 Aadhar Card and got the sale deed executed in connection of which a regular suit for cancellation of sale deed has been filed which is pending consideration.

6. The interest of the co-accused Ankit, one of the conspirators, has also been protected by this Court vide order dated 22.10.2025 which can be gathered from para 6 of the order dated 24.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1213 of 2025, a copy of which is annexed at Page Nos. 84 to 87 to the present appeal.

7. Further submission is that the sale deed dated 24.06.2024 indicates that the amount of sale consideration was provided through Cheque No. 002649 by Manish Kumar Maurya, vendee of the property under sale deed dated

24.04.2024, and the same has not been en-cashed till date. Thus, it is clear that Manish Kumar Maurya is the main accused who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in terms of order dated 24.04.2025.

9. Thus, taking note of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

10. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel including the fact that co-accused Manish Kumar Maurya has already been enlarged on bail by this Court and interest of the co-accused Ankit, one of the conspirators, has also been protected.

11. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation and also that co-accused Manish Kumar Maurya has already been enlarged on bail by this Court and interest of the co-accused Ankit, one of the conspirators, has also been protected.

12. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the statement(s) on record reduced in writing by I.O. and contents of the FIR as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

13. the impugned orders dated 19.08.2025 and 02.09.2025 passed by the 3 CRLA No. 2875 of 2025 Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No. 256 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 305 of 2024 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Mishrikh, District-Sitapur are hereby set aside.

14. Let appellant-Nanhu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (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 will 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.P.C.

15. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations 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 made in this order. November 24, 2025 Vinay/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) VINAY KUMAR VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. As per Officer report dated 09.10.2025, the service of notice upon opposite party No.2 is sufficient. Today, when the case called out, no one appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 to oppose the present bail appeal. In this background of the case, this Court proceeded to decide the appeal on merits.

2. By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the impugned orders dated 19.08.2025 and 02.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No. 256 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 305 of 2024 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Mishrikh, District-Sitapur.

3. It is stated that the appellant, aged about 75 years, , is in jail since 04.08.2025 and has falsely been implicated in the present case by co-accused Manish Kumar Maurya and Ankit.

4. It is also stated that co-accused Manish Kumar Maurya has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1213 of 2025.

5. Further stated that a perusal of the statement of co-accused Ankit, annexed as Annexure No. 8 to the present appeal, would indicate that the appellant is a victim of conspiracy of co-accused Ankit and Manish Kumar Maurya, according to which, the face of the appellant resembles with the face of actual owner of the property transferred through sale deed registered on

24.06.2024 in the Office of Sub-Registrar, Sitapur, namely Sattu S/o Bhoopai and both the co-accused therefore conspired and prepared a forged 2 CRLA No. 2875 of 2025 Aadhar Card and got the sale deed executed in connection of which a regular suit for cancellation of sale deed has been filed which is pending consideration.

6. The interest of the co-accused Ankit, one of the conspirators, has also been protected by this Court vide order dated 22.10.2025 which can be gathered from para 6 of the order dated 24.04.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1213 of 2025, a copy of which is annexed at Page Nos. 84 to 87 to the present appeal.

7. Further submission is that the sale deed dated 24.06.2024 indicates that the amount of sale consideration was provided through Cheque No. 002649 by Manish Kumar Maurya, vendee of the property under sale deed dated

24.04.2024, and the same has not been en-cashed till date. Thus, it is clear that Manish Kumar Maurya is the main accused who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court in terms of order dated 24.04.2025.

9. Thus, taking note of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

10. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel including the fact that co-accused Manish Kumar Maurya has already been enlarged on bail by this Court and interest of the co-accused Ankit, one of the conspirators, has also been protected.

11. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation and also that co-accused Manish Kumar Maurya has already been enlarged on bail by this Court and interest of the co-accused Ankit, one of the conspirators, has also been protected.

12. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the statement(s) on record reduced in writing by I.O. and contents of the FIR as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

13. the impugned orders dated 19.08.2025 and 02.09.2025 passed by the 3 CRLA No. 2875 of 2025 Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No. 256 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 305 of 2024 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 IPC and Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Mishrikh, District-Sitapur are hereby set aside.

14. Let appellant-Nanhu be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (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 will 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.P.C.

15. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations 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 made in this order. November 24, 2025 Vinay/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) VINAY KUMAR VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench