Jahid Ali v. State of U

: Aman Kumar Shrivastav : G.A. Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

1. As per Office report dated 13.10.2025, 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. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

3. By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Bail Application No. 328 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 186 of 2025 under Sections 103(1) BNS and Sections 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Nighasan, District-Lakhimpur Kheri.

4. For the purposes of seeking bail it is submitted that the co-accused Jahid Ali, having similar role, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2588 of 2025. The relevant portion of the order dated 17.10.2025 is extracted hereinunder:- "The applicant asserts that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case, arguing that the whole incident is based on a concocted story and that no eye-witness has been mentioned in the FIR. His defence specifically highlights that the statements of villagers only suggest the applicant and co-accused "were seen nearby the field informant after the incident", which the defence argues does not directly prove the commission of the crime. The defence also challenges the applicability of the SC/ST Act sections, arguing that the death was a self-willed act committed by unknown persons and that the motive of land enmity has been wrongly invoked. The applicant further contends that there is no other 2 CRLA No. 2905 of 2025 witness against him and emphasizes that the case rests purely on circumstantial evidence. The applicant further claims to be an old aged person about 80 years (a claim contested by the opposite party) and undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses, deserving to be enlarged on bail. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 285/2025; Jahid Ali Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 186 of 2025, under Section BNSS 103(1) and Section SC/ST Act 3(2)(5), Police Station Nighasan, District Lakhimpur Kheri deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the counsel for the victim, Shri Ravindra Kumar, vehemently opposed the bail application of the accused, Jahid Ali, in connection with Case Crime No. 186 of 2025. The application challenged the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri. The opposition was based on the gravity of the offense?the brutal murder of the minor son of the informant, due to land enmity. The FIR was lodged under Sections 103(1) BNS and 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, among others. The prosecution strongly relied on the postmortem report, which found a fractured hyoid bone and the cause of death as Asphyxia due to antemortem hanging, indicating strangulation and staging. The lower court's rejection order, which was challenged, was upheld by the High Court's observation that the prosecution's case rests solely on motive and circumstantial evidence of villagers seeing the accused nearby after the incident, with no direct eye-witness found. The accused has been languishing in jail since 05.07.2025. 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 parties, this Court finds that the case is arising out of Case Crime No. 186 of 2025 at P.S. Nighasan, District Lakhimpur Kheri, involving the Applicant/Accused, Jahid Ali, who has been in jail since

05.07.2025 over the alleged brutal murder of the victim, a minor, whose body was then hung from a tree to stage a suicide. It transpires that the informant is not an eye witness; during the course of the investigation, the submissions of some villagers were recorded who stated that the applicant and other co-accused were seen nearby the informant's field after the incident, but these statements did not directly connect the applicant/accused to the incident. Consequently, no eye witness was found. The allegation against the applicant is based only on the motive of enmity/land dispute. The Court further notes that the chain of circumstance evidence is completed. The criminal history of the applicant, which includes involvement in Case Crime No. 19/23 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5a SC/ST Act P.S. Nighasan, District Kheri, has been explained by the learned counsel."

5. Thus, taking note of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also 3 CRLA No. 2905 of 2025 that the appellant is in jail since 05.07.2025, 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.

6. 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 that co-accused Jahid Ali, having similar role, has already been granted bail by this Court.

7. 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., medical report as well as other relevant documents including co-accused Jahid Ali, having similar role, has already been granted bail by this Court.

8. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the statement(s) of the victim 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.

9. The impugned order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Bail Application No. 328 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 186 of 2025 under Sections 103(1) BNS and Sections 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Nighasan, District- Lakhimpur Kheri, is hereby set aside.

10. Let appellant-Mumtaj Ali 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. 4 CRLA No. 2905 of 2025 (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.

11. 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 12, 2025 Vinay/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

: Aman Kumar Shrivastav : G.A. Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

1. As per Office report dated 13.10.2025, 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. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

3. By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Bail Application No. 328 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 186 of 2025 under Sections 103(1) BNS and Sections 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Nighasan, District-Lakhimpur Kheri.

4. For the purposes of seeking bail it is submitted that the co-accused Jahid Ali, having similar role, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2588 of 2025. The relevant portion of the order dated 17.10.2025 is extracted hereinunder:- "The applicant asserts that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case, arguing that the whole incident is based on a concocted story and that no eye-witness has been mentioned in the FIR. His defence specifically highlights that the statements of villagers only suggest the applicant and co-accused "were seen nearby the field informant after the incident", which the defence argues does not directly prove the commission of the crime. The defence also challenges the applicability of the SC/ST Act sections, arguing that the death was a self-willed act committed by unknown persons and that the motive of land enmity has been wrongly invoked. The applicant further contends that there is no other 2 CRLA No. 2905 of 2025 witness against him and emphasizes that the case rests purely on circumstantial evidence. The applicant further claims to be an old aged person about 80 years (a claim contested by the opposite party) and undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses, deserving to be enlarged on bail. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 285/2025; Jahid Ali Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 186 of 2025, under Section BNSS 103(1) and Section SC/ST Act 3(2)(5), Police Station Nighasan, District Lakhimpur Kheri deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the counsel for the victim, Shri Ravindra Kumar, vehemently opposed the bail application of the accused, Jahid Ali, in connection with Case Crime No. 186 of 2025. The application challenged the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri. The opposition was based on the gravity of the offense?the brutal murder of the minor son of the informant, due to land enmity. The FIR was lodged under Sections 103(1) BNS and 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, among others. The prosecution strongly relied on the postmortem report, which found a fractured hyoid bone and the cause of death as Asphyxia due to antemortem hanging, indicating strangulation and staging. The lower court's rejection order, which was challenged, was upheld by the High Court's observation that the prosecution's case rests solely on motive and circumstantial evidence of villagers seeing the accused nearby after the incident, with no direct eye-witness found. The accused has been languishing in jail since 05.07.2025. 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 parties, this Court finds that the case is arising out of Case Crime No. 186 of 2025 at P.S. Nighasan, District Lakhimpur Kheri, involving the Applicant/Accused, Jahid Ali, who has been in jail since

05.07.2025 over the alleged brutal murder of the victim, a minor, whose body was then hung from a tree to stage a suicide. It transpires that the informant is not an eye witness; during the course of the investigation, the submissions of some villagers were recorded who stated that the applicant and other co-accused were seen nearby the informant's field after the incident, but these statements did not directly connect the applicant/accused to the incident. Consequently, no eye witness was found. The allegation against the applicant is based only on the motive of enmity/land dispute. The Court further notes that the chain of circumstance evidence is completed. The criminal history of the applicant, which includes involvement in Case Crime No. 19/23 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5a SC/ST Act P.S. Nighasan, District Kheri, has been explained by the learned counsel."

5. Thus, taking note of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also 3 CRLA No. 2905 of 2025 that the appellant is in jail since 05.07.2025, 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.

6. 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 that co-accused Jahid Ali, having similar role, has already been granted bail by this Court.

7. 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., medical report as well as other relevant documents including co-accused Jahid Ali, having similar role, has already been granted bail by this Court.

8. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the statement(s) of the victim 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.

9. The impugned order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Bail Application No. 328 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 186 of 2025 under Sections 103(1) BNS and Sections 3(2) 5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Nighasan, District- Lakhimpur Kheri, is hereby set aside.

10. Let appellant-Mumtaj Ali 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. 4 CRLA No. 2905 of 2025 (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.

11. 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 12, 2025 Vinay/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench