State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another vs Counsel for Appellant(s)

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State of U.P., Sri Amit Kumar Sonkar, Advocate, who put in appearance alongwith Sri Ashish Kharwar, Advocate and filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 in the Court today, which is taken on record, as well as perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application (Computer Registration No.1695 of 2025), arising out of Case Crime No.182 of 2025, under Sections - 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110, 117(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Ayodhya, District- Ayodhya.

3. It is stated that if the case of prosecution is taken on its face value, then in that eventuality, it can be inferred that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case.

4. Further stated that co-accused namely persons namely Khaddu Alias Deva Nishad and Mohd. Sajid, similarly situated, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in terms of orders dated 28.08.2025 and 28.08.2025 passed in CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 2018 of 2025 and 2015 of 2025. Relevant the case of co- portion of accused/Mohd. Sajid is extracted here-in-under:- the order dated 28.08.2025 passed "3. While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant, whose criminal history of two cases has been explained in para 19 of the affidavit, infact is in jail since 20.04.2025 is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

4. He further stated that in the F.I.R. which was lodged with the delay of about 17 hours the name of the appellant was not indicated by the informant and the F.I.R. is completely false and concocted.

5. It is further submitted that name of the appellant surfaced in the statement of the injured persons namely Nihal, Pankaj and Durgesh. 2 CRLA No. 3444 of 2025

6. It is stated that the statement of the injured witnesses if taken on its face value, then it is apparent that on account of some dispute in the D.J. which fact has also been indicated in the F.I.R. some altercation took place between the parties and in the said altercation the injured sustained injuries and all the injuries as per medical opinion could be caused by hard and blunt object and from these facts it can be deduced that the incident occurred without predetermination of mind on spur of moment and as such the offence under Sections 110 and 115 (2) of BNS would be attracted.

7. It is further stated that the appellant infact has been implicated with oblique motive as the appellant is friend of the other co-accused. In these circumstances, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

8. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

9. 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., as well as other relevant documents.

10. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances 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.

11. Order dated 10.06.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application (Computer Registration No.947 of 2025) CNR No.UPFZ01-003028-2025, arising out of Case Crime No.182 of 2025, under Sections - 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110, 117(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3 (2) (V) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station - Kotwali Ayodhya, District - Ayodhya is hereby set aside.

12. Let the appellant - Mohd. Sajid be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-"

5. In these circumstances, the appellant, who is in jail since 11.08.2025, is also entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

6. Learned A.G.A. and also learned counsel for the private opposite party vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons, named above, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

7. 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. as also that co-accused persons, named above, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation. 3 CRLA No. 3444 of 2025

8. 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.

9. The order dated 26.09.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application (Computer Registration No.1695 of 2025), arising out of Case Crime No.182 of 2025, under Sections - 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110, 117(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Ayodhya, District- Ayodhya, is hereby set aside.

10. Let the appellant- Rahul Nishad 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.

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 21, 2025 Arun/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State of U.P., Sri Amit Kumar Sonkar, Advocate, who put in appearance alongwith Sri Ashish Kharwar, Advocate and filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 in the Court today, which is taken on record, as well as perused the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application (Computer Registration No.1695 of 2025), arising out of Case Crime No.182 of 2025, under Sections - 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110, 117(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Ayodhya, District- Ayodhya.

3. It is stated that if the case of prosecution is taken on its face value, then in that eventuality, it can be inferred that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case.

4. Further stated that co-accused namely persons namely Khaddu Alias Deva Nishad and Mohd. Sajid, similarly situated, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in terms of orders dated 28.08.2025 and 28.08.2025 passed in CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 2018 of 2025 and 2015 of 2025. Relevant the case of co- portion of accused/Mohd. Sajid is extracted here-in-under:- the order dated 28.08.2025 passed "3. While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant, whose criminal history of two cases has been explained in para 19 of the affidavit, infact is in jail since 20.04.2025 is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

4. He further stated that in the F.I.R. which was lodged with the delay of about 17 hours the name of the appellant was not indicated by the informant and the F.I.R. is completely false and concocted.

5. It is further submitted that name of the appellant surfaced in the statement of the injured persons namely Nihal, Pankaj and Durgesh. 2 CRLA No. 3444 of 2025

6. It is stated that the statement of the injured witnesses if taken on its face value, then it is apparent that on account of some dispute in the D.J. which fact has also been indicated in the F.I.R. some altercation took place between the parties and in the said altercation the injured sustained injuries and all the injuries as per medical opinion could be caused by hard and blunt object and from these facts it can be deduced that the incident occurred without predetermination of mind on spur of moment and as such the offence under Sections 110 and 115 (2) of BNS would be attracted.

7. It is further stated that the appellant infact has been implicated with oblique motive as the appellant is friend of the other co-accused. In these circumstances, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

8. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

9. 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., as well as other relevant documents.

10. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances 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.

11. Order dated 10.06.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application (Computer Registration No.947 of 2025) CNR No.UPFZ01-003028-2025, arising out of Case Crime No.182 of 2025, under Sections - 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110, 117(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3 (2) (V) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station - Kotwali Ayodhya, District - Ayodhya is hereby set aside.

12. Let the appellant - Mohd. Sajid be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-"

5. In these circumstances, the appellant, who is in jail since 11.08.2025, is also entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

6. Learned A.G.A. and also learned counsel for the private opposite party vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the fact that the co-accused persons, named above, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

7. 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. as also that co-accused persons, named above, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation. 3 CRLA No. 3444 of 2025

8. 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.

9. The order dated 26.09.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Bail Application (Computer Registration No.1695 of 2025), arising out of Case Crime No.182 of 2025, under Sections - 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109(1), 110, 117(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station- Kotwali Ayodhya, District- Ayodhya, is hereby set aside.

10. Let the appellant- Rahul Nishad 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.

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 21, 2025 Arun/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench