Naveen Singh v. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No

1.Heard Shri learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Chandra Kishore, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

2. The present appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 06.11.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli in Bail Application No.2951/2024, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.0243 of 2024, under Sections- 191(3), 103(2), 352, 3 (5) of B.N.S. and Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Nasirabad, District - Raebareli, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

3. While pressing the instant application for bail, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

4. He further stated that co-accused namely Naveen Singh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1500 of 2025. Copy of bail order of co-accused Naveen Singh placed before this Court for perusal of the Court. In these circumstances, the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

5. Relevant portion of the order dated 02.07.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1500 of 2025 on reproduction reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 passed in Bail application no. 901 of 2025 (Naveen Singh Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 243 of 2024, under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352, 3 (5) of B.N.S. Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nasirabad, District Raebareli by the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act Raebareli. As per the service report dated 12.06.2025, the notice has personally been served upon the respondent no. 2 as per the report submitted by the C.J.M. dated 10.09.2025 but neither respondent no. 2 is present nor any counsel has put in appearance on his behalf. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 11.08.2024 under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352 and 3/5 of B.N.S., as well as Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989 (amended in 2015), against seven named persons and five unnamed individuals, including the present appellant. The FIR alleges that the appellant, along with other co-accused persons, visited the informant's residence on 11.08.2024 and asked his son to accompany them, claiming that Vishal Singh (Block Pramukh Pratinidhi) was calling him. When the son resisted, Arjun Yadav, one of the co- accused, reportedly used caste-related slurs and threatened that if he would not come, he would be shot. Consequently, the son tried to flee, but Arjun Yadav shot him, resulting in his death. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that neither the FIR nor the informant's statement recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. mentions that the appellant shot his son. In the statement, the informant attributes the role of carrying the firearm to Arjun Yadav, who is also said to have used the caste-related slurs. During cross-examination, the informant acknowledged that the appellant was a friend of his son, having visited their home 10 to 20 times previously, and had been there a day before the incident, meaning thereby that appellant was not present on the day of the incident as alleged in the FIR and the statement given under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has rejected the bail of appellant primarily on the ground that the injuries found on the deceased's body were corroborating with the medical evidence, without considering who actually used the firearm and uttered the caste-related words towards the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below has mis-appreciated itself in reading evidence on record. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 13.08.2024. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Learned AGA has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that the appellant has not been any role in the incident. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, without commenting upon merits, it is found 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. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act Raebareli in Bail Application no. 901 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.243 of 2024, under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352, 3 (5) of B.N.S. Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nasirabad, District Raebareli is set aside."

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 have already been released on bail by this Court.

7. Upon due consideration of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and the facts & circumstances of the case including the role attributed to the appellant as also that co-accused have already been released on bail by this Court and 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.

8. Order dated 06.11.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli in Bail Application No.2951/2024, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.0243/2024, under Sections 191(3), 103(2), 352, 3 (5) of B.N.S. and Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Nasirabad, District - Raebareli is hereby set aside.

9. Let the appellant - Harshit Mishra be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a 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.

10. 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.

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. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 ML/- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1.Heard Shri learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Nirmal Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and Shri Chandra Kishore, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

2. The present appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed against the order dated 06.11.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli in Bail Application No.2951/2024, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.0243 of 2024, under Sections- 191(3), 103(2), 352, 3 (5) of B.N.S. and Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Nasirabad, District - Raebareli, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

3. While pressing the instant application for bail, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

4. He further stated that co-accused namely Naveen Singh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 02.07.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1500 of 2025. Copy of bail order of co-accused Naveen Singh placed before this Court for perusal of the Court. In these circumstances, the appellant is also entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

5. Relevant portion of the order dated 02.07.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1500 of 2025 on reproduction reads as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 passed in Bail application no. 901 of 2025 (Naveen Singh Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 243 of 2024, under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352, 3 (5) of B.N.S. Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nasirabad, District Raebareli by the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act Raebareli. As per the service report dated 12.06.2025, the notice has personally been served upon the respondent no. 2 as per the report submitted by the C.J.M. dated 10.09.2025 but neither respondent no. 2 is present nor any counsel has put in appearance on his behalf. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 11.08.2024 under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352 and 3/5 of B.N.S., as well as Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989 (amended in 2015), against seven named persons and five unnamed individuals, including the present appellant. The FIR alleges that the appellant, along with other co-accused persons, visited the informant's residence on 11.08.2024 and asked his son to accompany them, claiming that Vishal Singh (Block Pramukh Pratinidhi) was calling him. When the son resisted, Arjun Yadav, one of the co- accused, reportedly used caste-related slurs and threatened that if he would not come, he would be shot. Consequently, the son tried to flee, but Arjun Yadav shot him, resulting in his death. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that neither the FIR nor the informant's statement recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. mentions that the appellant shot his son. In the statement, the informant attributes the role of carrying the firearm to Arjun Yadav, who is also said to have used the caste-related slurs. During cross-examination, the informant acknowledged that the appellant was a friend of his son, having visited their home 10 to 20 times previously, and had been there a day before the incident, meaning thereby that appellant was not present on the day of the incident as alleged in the FIR and the statement given under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has rejected the bail of appellant primarily on the ground that the injuries found on the deceased's body were corroborating with the medical evidence, without considering who actually used the firearm and uttered the caste-related words towards the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below has mis-appreciated itself in reading evidence on record. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 13.08.2024. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses. Learned AGA has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that the appellant has not been any role in the incident. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, without commenting upon merits, it is found 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. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act Raebareli in Bail Application no. 901 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.243 of 2024, under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352, 3 (5) of B.N.S. Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nasirabad, District Raebareli is set aside."

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 have already been released on bail by this Court.

7. Upon due consideration of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and going through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents and the facts & circumstances of the case including the role attributed to the appellant as also that co-accused have already been released on bail by this Court and 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.

8. Order dated 06.11.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli in Bail Application No.2951/2024, arising out of F.I.R./Case Crime No.0243/2024, under Sections 191(3), 103(2), 352, 3 (5) of B.N.S. and Section 3 (2)(v) of SC/ST Act, at Police Station - Nasirabad, District - Raebareli is hereby set aside.

9. Let the appellant - Harshit Mishra be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a 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.

10. 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.

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. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 ML/- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench