Tinku v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (Crl. Misc. Application No.1 of 2025) Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District-Pratapgarh, whereby the bail application of the appellant in Case Crime No. 01 of 2025, Under Section 103(1), 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Raniganj, District-Pratapgarh, was rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku, has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 01/2025 (Sections 103(1), 61(2)(a) BNS & 3(2)V SC/ST Act) and is currently languishing in jail since

19.03.2025. The appellant is not named in the F.I.R.; his name came into the light during the investigation solely based on the confessional statement of the co-accused Umed Ali, and this implication occurred approximately two months after the alleged incident (31.12.2024). His assigned role is only one of incitement/instigation of the co-accused to fire, and not the actual firing of the weapon that caused the single fatal injury to the deceased, Shivam Saroj. The appellant's prior criminal history, which includes serious offenses like murder and the Gangsters Act, has been fully explained in paragraphs 19-22, noting that he was previously granted bail in all those cases. Specifically, in Case Crime No. 555/2019 (Sections 302, 394, 411, and 120-B IPC - relating to Murder and Robbery) where he was granted bail by the High Court on 18.06.2020; Case Crime No. 985/2019 (Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act) where he was granted bail by the High Court on 24.06.2020; Case Crime No. 691/2019 (Section 307/34 IPC - relating to Attempt to Murder); and Case Crime No. 652/2019 (Section 3/25 Arms Act). The Trial Court committed a manifest error of facts and law in summarily rejecting the bail application without appreciating the delayed and indirect nature of the implication and the appellant's history of adhering to bail conditions in 2 CRLA No. 2889 of 2025 all four prior serious cases. He further submits that the principle of parity strongly applies to the appellant's case. If any co-accused, particularly Umed Ali, who has been assigned the primary role of firing the fatal shot, is granted bail, the appellant, whose role is only secondary (incitement), deserves to be enlarged on bail on the basis of parity. The prosecution's story rests heavily on an out-of-court confession by a co-accused, which is weak evidence. The appellant undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses, and considering the limited role, the delay in implication, and the potential for a parity argument (pending the co-accused's bail status), he deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District-Pratapgarh (in Misc. Bail Application No. 2085/2025) arising out of Case Crime No. 01/2025, under Sections 103(1), 61(2)(a) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Raniganj, District-Pratapgarh, deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant, Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku, deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that the appellant, Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku, committed a serious offense, namely murder (Section 103(1) BNS) and offenses under the SC/ST Act against the deceased, Shivam Saroj. They asserted that the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh, rightly found the crime to be of a heinous criminal nature, involving a firearm and resulting in death, which warranted the dismissal of the bail application via the order dated 02.07.2025. Furthermore, the A.G.A. contended that the appellant's role was not merely passive, as he incited the co-accused to fire and was part of a criminal conspiracy that resulted in the death. The A.G.A. also emphasized the appellant's criminal history (Paras 19-22) and argued that the delayed implication, based on the co-accused's statement, does not diminish the gravity of the appellant's involvement in the crime. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., this Court notes that the F.I.R. dated 01.01.2025 (Case Crime No. 01/2025, P.S. Raniganj) was lodged by the father of the deceased, Shivam Saroj, alleging his son was killed by a firearm. It is noted that the appellant, Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku, is not named in the F.I.R. and was subsequently implicated approximately two months after the incident (31.12.2024) solely on the confessional statement of the is one of role assigned co-accused, Umed Ali. The incitement/instigation to fire, while the Postmortem Report confirms death due to a single firearm injury. It is further noted that the appellant has been in jail since 19.03.2025. Crucially, the appellant has criminal history explained aforesaid, but he the appellant 3 CRLA No. 2889 of 2025 was previously granted bail in all four cases, including those under Section 302 IPC and the Gangsters Act. Considering the indirect and delayed nature of his implication, the secondary role assigned to him, and the fact that the learned court below rejected the bail application despite his history of successfully adhering to bail conditions in serious matters, and without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated

02.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional District & Session Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2085 of 2025; Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 01 of 2025, under Section 103(1), 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Raniganj, District Pratapgarh is hereby set aside. Let the appellant- Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 tria. (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 4 CRLA No. 2889 of 2025 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 9, 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.1 of 2025) Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District-Pratapgarh, whereby the bail application of the appellant in Case Crime No. 01 of 2025, Under Section 103(1), 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Raniganj, District-Pratapgarh, was rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku, has been falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 01/2025 (Sections 103(1), 61(2)(a) BNS & 3(2)V SC/ST Act) and is currently languishing in jail since

19.03.2025. The appellant is not named in the F.I.R.; his name came into the light during the investigation solely based on the confessional statement of the co-accused Umed Ali, and this implication occurred approximately two months after the alleged incident (31.12.2024). His assigned role is only one of incitement/instigation of the co-accused to fire, and not the actual firing of the weapon that caused the single fatal injury to the deceased, Shivam Saroj. The appellant's prior criminal history, which includes serious offenses like murder and the Gangsters Act, has been fully explained in paragraphs 19-22, noting that he was previously granted bail in all those cases. Specifically, in Case Crime No. 555/2019 (Sections 302, 394, 411, and 120-B IPC - relating to Murder and Robbery) where he was granted bail by the High Court on 18.06.2020; Case Crime No. 985/2019 (Sections 2/3 U.P. Gangsters Act) where he was granted bail by the High Court on 24.06.2020; Case Crime No. 691/2019 (Section 307/34 IPC - relating to Attempt to Murder); and Case Crime No. 652/2019 (Section 3/25 Arms Act). The Trial Court committed a manifest error of facts and law in summarily rejecting the bail application without appreciating the delayed and indirect nature of the implication and the appellant's history of adhering to bail conditions in 2 CRLA No. 2889 of 2025 all four prior serious cases. He further submits that the principle of parity strongly applies to the appellant's case. If any co-accused, particularly Umed Ali, who has been assigned the primary role of firing the fatal shot, is granted bail, the appellant, whose role is only secondary (incitement), deserves to be enlarged on bail on the basis of parity. The prosecution's story rests heavily on an out-of-court confession by a co-accused, which is weak evidence. The appellant undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses, and considering the limited role, the delay in implication, and the potential for a parity argument (pending the co-accused's bail status), he deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District-Pratapgarh (in Misc. Bail Application No. 2085/2025) arising out of Case Crime No. 01/2025, under Sections 103(1), 61(2)(a) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Raniganj, District-Pratapgarh, deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant, Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku, deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that the appellant, Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku, committed a serious offense, namely murder (Section 103(1) BNS) and offenses under the SC/ST Act against the deceased, Shivam Saroj. They asserted that the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh, rightly found the crime to be of a heinous criminal nature, involving a firearm and resulting in death, which warranted the dismissal of the bail application via the order dated 02.07.2025. Furthermore, the A.G.A. contended that the appellant's role was not merely passive, as he incited the co-accused to fire and was part of a criminal conspiracy that resulted in the death. The A.G.A. also emphasized the appellant's criminal history (Paras 19-22) and argued that the delayed implication, based on the co-accused's statement, does not diminish the gravity of the appellant's involvement in the crime. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., this Court notes that the F.I.R. dated 01.01.2025 (Case Crime No. 01/2025, P.S. Raniganj) was lodged by the father of the deceased, Shivam Saroj, alleging his son was killed by a firearm. It is noted that the appellant, Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku, is not named in the F.I.R. and was subsequently implicated approximately two months after the incident (31.12.2024) solely on the confessional statement of the is one of role assigned co-accused, Umed Ali. The incitement/instigation to fire, while the Postmortem Report confirms death due to a single firearm injury. It is further noted that the appellant has been in jail since 19.03.2025. Crucially, the appellant has criminal history explained aforesaid, but he the appellant 3 CRLA No. 2889 of 2025 was previously granted bail in all four cases, including those under Section 302 IPC and the Gangsters Act. Considering the indirect and delayed nature of his implication, the secondary role assigned to him, and the fact that the learned court below rejected the bail application despite his history of successfully adhering to bail conditions in serious matters, and without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated

02.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional District & Session Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2085 of 2025; Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 01 of 2025, under Section 103(1), 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Raniganj, District Pratapgarh is hereby set aside. Let the appellant- Amresh Tripathi @ Tinku, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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 tria. (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 4 CRLA No. 2889 of 2025 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 9, 2025 Haseen U. (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench