Kuldeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the record.

2. 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 05.10.2024 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2101/2024:Kuldeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No.168/2024, under Sections 302/34/201 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3 (2) v SC/ST Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant/applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. The appellant/applicant was not named in the F.I.R.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there is no eye witness account mentioned in the F.I.R. He further submits that the name of appellant/applicant came in the light in the statement of co-accused- Sarita Saroj and the joint recovery of knife and blood stained cloth is said to be made, which is planted. He further submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of evidence is totally broken, the police has also failed to complete the chain of evidence to connect the 2 CRLA No. 3428 of 2024 appellant in the present crime. He further submits that there is no any direct witness of the alleged crime, thus it cannot be said that the appellant is involved in the present case.

5. Learned counsel appellant further submits accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 09.06.2024, who has no previous criminal history, and in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall also fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that co-accused Sarita Saroj has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4757 of 2025. He further submits that the case of the appellant is not on the worst footing than that of the other co-accused, who have been already granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated

05.10.2024 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2101/2024:Kuldeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No.168/2024, under Sections 302/34/201 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3 (2) v SC/ST Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant along with the other co-accused Sarita Saroj committed the murder of the deceased and on their pointing out knife and blood stained cloth were recovered. They further submit that there is active participation of accused/appellant in the crime. Therefore, the accused/ appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, they have been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant. 3 CRLA No. 3428 of 2024

9. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, submissions of counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. and considering the facts and circumstance of the case and on the perusal of the material available on record, it transpires that there is no eye witness account; the appellant/applicant is not named in the F.I.R.; during the course of investigation, on the pointing out of appellant and other co- accused-Sarita Saroj knife and blood stained cloth were recovered, but till date no FSL report is submitted, the co-accused Sarita Saroj has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of Court vide order dated

13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4757 of 2025 as well as the fact that the appellant is in jail since 09.06.2024 without having any criminal history and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.10.2024 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2101/2024:Kuldeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No.168/2024, under Sections 302/34/201 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3 (2) v SC/ST Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.

11. Let the appellant-Kuldeep Kumar Kesarwani be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount 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 (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate 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 4 CRLA No. 3428 of 2024 the facts of the case so as to dissuade them 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.

12. 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

13. 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.

14. The trial court is also directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case, by following the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C./346(2) BNSS, within a period of one year from today, strictly without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties, in case there is no other legal impediment. October 27, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the record.

2. 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 05.10.2024 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2101/2024:Kuldeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No.168/2024, under Sections 302/34/201 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3 (2) v SC/ST Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant/applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. The appellant/applicant was not named in the F.I.R.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there is no eye witness account mentioned in the F.I.R. He further submits that the name of appellant/applicant came in the light in the statement of co-accused- Sarita Saroj and the joint recovery of knife and blood stained cloth is said to be made, which is planted. He further submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of evidence is totally broken, the police has also failed to complete the chain of evidence to connect the 2 CRLA No. 3428 of 2024 appellant in the present crime. He further submits that there is no any direct witness of the alleged crime, thus it cannot be said that the appellant is involved in the present case.

5. Learned counsel appellant further submits accused/appellant is languishing in jail since 09.06.2024, who has no previous criminal history, and in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall also fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that co-accused Sarita Saroj has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of Court vide order dated 13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4757 of 2025. He further submits that the case of the appellant is not on the worst footing than that of the other co-accused, who have been already granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated

05.10.2024 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2101/2024:Kuldeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No.168/2024, under Sections 302/34/201 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3 (2) v SC/ST Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant along with the other co-accused Sarita Saroj committed the murder of the deceased and on their pointing out knife and blood stained cloth were recovered. They further submit that there is active participation of accused/appellant in the crime. Therefore, the accused/ appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, they have been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant. 3 CRLA No. 3428 of 2024

9. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, submissions of counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. and considering the facts and circumstance of the case and on the perusal of the material available on record, it transpires that there is no eye witness account; the appellant/applicant is not named in the F.I.R.; during the course of investigation, on the pointing out of appellant and other co- accused-Sarita Saroj knife and blood stained cloth were recovered, but till date no FSL report is submitted, the co-accused Sarita Saroj has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of Court vide order dated

13.10.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4757 of 2025 as well as the fact that the appellant is in jail since 09.06.2024 without having any criminal history and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 05.10.2024 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 2101/2024:Kuldeep Kumar Kesarwani Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No.168/2024, under Sections 302/34/201 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (da), 3(1) (dha), 3 (2) v SC/ST Act, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.

11. Let the appellant-Kuldeep Kumar Kesarwani be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount 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 (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate 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 4 CRLA No. 3428 of 2024 the facts of the case so as to dissuade them 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.

12. 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

13. 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.

14. The trial court is also directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case, by following the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C./346(2) BNSS, within a period of one year from today, strictly without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties, in case there is no other legal impediment. October 27, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench