High Court · 2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Alok Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Amit Tewari, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and Sri Ravi Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No. 2762 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 211 of 2024 under Sections 354 Kha, 147, 148, 323, 325, 504, 506, 447, 376 IPC Section 3(2) (5) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Gangaghat, District-Unnao.

3. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that case of the prosecution against the appellant is completely false and concocted and as such the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. Explaining the same, he brought to the notice following facts before this Court:- (i) The opposite party No.2/injured-informant is the real brother of the first party to the registered agreement to sale dated 29.08.2023 namely Jaisingh, who executed the agreement to sale with regard to his share i.e. one and half i.e. 0.2400 hect. in Khata No. 239 Gata No. 382 total area 0.4800 hect. situate at Village-Majhara Peepar Kheda Ahatmaali Paragana Hardha, Tehsil and District-Unnao and second party to the agreement are Suraj Gautam S/o Ganga Prasad, Sunil S/o Dularey, Mohd. Ahsan S/o Mohd. Iqbal. (ii) The names of aforesaid persons have been mentioned in the FIR No. 0211 of 2024 dated 27.04.2024 in issue which is the basis of pending criminal proceedings against the appellant and others. (iii) The opposite party No.2-informant/injured implicated his real brother, first party to the agreement to sale, namely Jaisingh. (iv) The aforesaid indicates that the opposite party No.2 injured-informant being annoyed with the execution of agreement to sale dated 29.08.2023 implicated all the persons who were parties to the agreement to sale dated 29.08.2023 as also the appellants and two others, who are close to the second party to the agreement to sale dated 29.08.2023. (v) On account of agreement to sale dated 29.08.2023, between the parties some hot altercation took place on 18.04.2024 at about 03:00 PM and in the same, the opposite party No. 2 sustained injuries including fracture of middle finger of right hand, however, on the said date no FIR was lodged. (vi) The FIR was not lodged even immediately after the injured- informant was medically examined by the Doctor concerned on 22.04.2024. It was for oblique motive. In this regard, it is stated that the opposite party No. 2/injured-informant on 27.04.2024, appears to be on advise received, get medically examined his wife and daughter at District Hospital, Unnao, as would appear from Annexure Nos. 4 and 5 to the present appeal. (vii) It is stated that Annexure No.4, Medico Legal Examination/Injury Report of wife (victim) of the opposite party No.2-injured/informant, would show that Doctor concerned opined that 'complaint of pain in left knee, complaint of pain in right thigh and complaint of pain in neck sub difficulty in deglutition', thus, this injured in fact sustained no injury and Annexure No.5, Medico Legal Examination/Injury Report of daughter (victim) of the opposite party No.2- injured/informant, would also show that Doctor concerned opined that 'complaint of pain in both thighs, complaint of vague abdominal pain and complaint of backache', thus, this injured also not sustained any injury. (viii) After medical examination of wife and daughter of the opposite party No.2-injured/informant, the FIR was lodged on 27.04.2024 by opposite party No. 2 making allegations related to crime against women including to attract the offence under Section 376 IPC, though, medical examination does not support the case of the prosecution in this regard. (ix) It is further submitted that it is a case of abuse of process of law and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, appellant, who is in jail since 03.09.2024, is entitled to be released on bail and appeal is liable to be allowed.

4. Learned A.G.A. and Sri Srivastava, vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

5. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., medical examination report as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation.

6. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances 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.

7. The order dated 04.10.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No. 2762 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 211 of 2024 under Sections 354 Kha, 147, 148, 323, 325, 504, 506, 447, 376 IPC Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Gangaghat, District-Unnao, is hereby set aside.

8. Let appellant-Haroon @ Mohd. Haroon, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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.

9. 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. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Vinay/- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Alok Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Amit Tewari, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and Sri Ravi Pratap Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 04.10.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No. 2762 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 211 of 2024 under Sections 354 Kha, 147, 148, 323, 325, 504, 506, 447, 376 IPC Section 3(2) (5) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Gangaghat, District-Unnao.

3. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that case of the prosecution against the appellant is completely false and concocted and as such the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. Explaining the same, he brought to the notice following facts before this Court:- (i) The opposite party No.2/injured-informant is the real brother of the first party to the registered agreement to sale dated 29.08.2023 namely Jaisingh, who executed the agreement to sale with regard to his share i.e. one and half i.e. 0.2400 hect. in Khata No. 239 Gata No. 382 total area 0.4800 hect. situate at Village-Majhara Peepar Kheda Ahatmaali Paragana Hardha, Tehsil and District-Unnao and second party to the agreement are Suraj Gautam S/o Ganga Prasad, Sunil S/o Dularey, Mohd. Ahsan S/o Mohd. Iqbal. (ii) The names of aforesaid persons have been mentioned in the FIR No. 0211 of 2024 dated 27.04.2024 in issue which is the basis of pending criminal proceedings against the appellant and others. (iii) The opposite party No.2-informant/injured implicated his real brother, first party to the agreement to sale, namely Jaisingh. (iv) The aforesaid indicates that the opposite party No.2 injured-informant being annoyed with the execution of agreement to sale dated 29.08.2023 implicated all the persons who were parties to the agreement to sale dated 29.08.2023 as also the appellants and two others, who are close to the second party to the agreement to sale dated 29.08.2023. (v) On account of agreement to sale dated 29.08.2023, between the parties some hot altercation took place on 18.04.2024 at about 03:00 PM and in the same, the opposite party No. 2 sustained injuries including fracture of middle finger of right hand, however, on the said date no FIR was lodged. (vi) The FIR was not lodged even immediately after the injured- informant was medically examined by the Doctor concerned on 22.04.2024. It was for oblique motive. In this regard, it is stated that the opposite party No. 2/injured-informant on 27.04.2024, appears to be on advise received, get medically examined his wife and daughter at District Hospital, Unnao, as would appear from Annexure Nos. 4 and 5 to the present appeal. (vii) It is stated that Annexure No.4, Medico Legal Examination/Injury Report of wife (victim) of the opposite party No.2-injured/informant, would show that Doctor concerned opined that 'complaint of pain in left knee, complaint of pain in right thigh and complaint of pain in neck sub difficulty in deglutition', thus, this injured in fact sustained no injury and Annexure No.5, Medico Legal Examination/Injury Report of daughter (victim) of the opposite party No.2- injured/informant, would also show that Doctor concerned opined that 'complaint of pain in both thighs, complaint of vague abdominal pain and complaint of backache', thus, this injured also not sustained any injury. (viii) After medical examination of wife and daughter of the opposite party No.2-injured/informant, the FIR was lodged on 27.04.2024 by opposite party No. 2 making allegations related to crime against women including to attract the offence under Section 376 IPC, though, medical examination does not support the case of the prosecution in this regard. (ix) It is further submitted that it is a case of abuse of process of law and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, appellant, who is in jail since 03.09.2024, is entitled to be released on bail and appeal is liable to be allowed.

4. Learned A.G.A. and Sri Srivastava, vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

5. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., medical examination report as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation.

6. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances 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.

7. The order dated 04.10.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Unnao in Bail Application No. 2762 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 211 of 2024 under Sections 354 Kha, 147, 148, 323, 325, 504, 506, 447, 376 IPC Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Gangaghat, District-Unnao, is hereby set aside.

8. Let appellant-Haroon @ Mohd. Haroon, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his 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.

9. 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. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Vinay/- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench