Kunwar Pratap Singh And Another v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the private opposite parties 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 19.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2638 of 2025 in Case Crime No. 76 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 115(2), 131, 352, 351(3), 333, 117(2) of BNS and Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)va, 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station Mahesh Ganj, District Pratapgarh, whereby the bail application of the appellants has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have falsely been implicated in the present case. She further submits that general role is assigned to all the accused persons. No specific role of the appellants is attributed in the FIR. She next submits that there is counter version and in this regard an application under Section 175(3) of BNSS was moved from the side of the appellants but the same is still pending. She further submits that there are two injured persons from the appellants' side but no explanation is given by the complainant. She further submits 2 CRLA No. 2897 of 2025 that injury received from the side of complainant are simple in nature and most of them are contusion, swelling and abrasion and only one fracture on the right ankle of one injured Rahul is found which is not endanger to life. She next submits that the appellants are languishing in jail since 22.04.2025 having no criminal history to their credit. He added that in case the appellants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and they shall fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellants 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 appellants submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellants are named in the FIR and the appellants alongwith the other co-accused persons have involved committing the offence, therefore, they are 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 appellants. 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 there is counter version and each party made counter allegation against each other; injuries sustained from the side of the appellants are not explained, whereas the injury received from the side of the complainant, except one, are simple in nature and most of the injuries are swelling, abrasion and contusion which are not seem to be dangerous for life; no specific role is assigned to all the accused persons and nothing has been recovered from the pointing out of the appellants; the appellants are languishing jail since 3 CRLA No. 2897 of 2025

22.04.2025 having no criminal history to their credit and they have undertaken that in case they are enlarged on bail, they 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. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2638 of 2025 in Case Crime No. 76 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 115(2), 131, 352, 351(3), 333, 117(2) of BNS and Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)va, 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station Mahesh Ganj, District Pratapgarh, is hereby set aside. Let the appellants-Aman @ Kunwar Pratap Singh and Raman @ Adarsh Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties relating to their family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions- (i) The appellants shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellants shall not tamper with the evidence during trial (iii) The appellants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellants 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 appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. 4 CRLA No. 2897 of 2025 (vii) The appellants shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellants 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 appellants 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. The role of the present appellants is distinguishable from co- accused, namely, Bhanu Pratap. October 29, 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 appellants, learned counsel for the private opposite parties 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 19.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2638 of 2025 in Case Crime No. 76 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 115(2), 131, 352, 351(3), 333, 117(2) of BNS and Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)va, 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station Mahesh Ganj, District Pratapgarh, whereby the bail application of the appellants has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have falsely been implicated in the present case. She further submits that general role is assigned to all the accused persons. No specific role of the appellants is attributed in the FIR. She next submits that there is counter version and in this regard an application under Section 175(3) of BNSS was moved from the side of the appellants but the same is still pending. She further submits that there are two injured persons from the appellants' side but no explanation is given by the complainant. She further submits 2 CRLA No. 2897 of 2025 that injury received from the side of complainant are simple in nature and most of them are contusion, swelling and abrasion and only one fracture on the right ankle of one injured Rahul is found which is not endanger to life. She next submits that the appellants are languishing in jail since 22.04.2025 having no criminal history to their credit. He added that in case the appellants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and they shall fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellants 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 appellants submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellants are named in the FIR and the appellants alongwith the other co-accused persons have involved committing the offence, therefore, they are 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 appellants. 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 there is counter version and each party made counter allegation against each other; injuries sustained from the side of the appellants are not explained, whereas the injury received from the side of the complainant, except one, are simple in nature and most of the injuries are swelling, abrasion and contusion which are not seem to be dangerous for life; no specific role is assigned to all the accused persons and nothing has been recovered from the pointing out of the appellants; the appellants are languishing jail since 3 CRLA No. 2897 of 2025

22.04.2025 having no criminal history to their credit and they have undertaken that in case they are enlarged on bail, they 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. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2638 of 2025 in Case Crime No. 76 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 115(2), 131, 352, 351(3), 333, 117(2) of BNS and Sections 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)va, 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station Mahesh Ganj, District Pratapgarh, is hereby set aside. Let the appellants-Aman @ Kunwar Pratap Singh and Raman @ Adarsh Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties relating to their family members to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional conditions- (i) The appellants shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellants shall not tamper with the evidence during trial (iii) The appellants shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellants 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 appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. 4 CRLA No. 2897 of 2025 (vii) The appellants shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellants 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 appellants 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. The role of the present appellants is distinguishable from co- accused, namely, Bhanu Pratap. October 29, 2025 kkv/ (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench