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

HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and perused the entire 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 06.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 3182/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 286/2024, under Sections 103/352 B.N.S., Section 3(1) DA, DHA and 3(2) (5a) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Gauriganj, District Amethi, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

3. As per prosecution case, the complainant Islam lodged the F.I.R. alleging therein that while his son Zeeshan @ Afsar was coming back home on 29.08.2024 at about 9.00 p.m. along with his friends, namely, Suraj and Sandeep Kumar, the accused persons had planned to apprehend the victims and while the son of the complainant reached Kazipatti, the accused persons chased him, hurled abuses with castitious slurs, and issued threats. Any how complainant's son escaped from the place of occurrence, but subsequently they were apprehended near Jainul Dhaba. It has been alleged that subsequently, the accused persons again assaulted the victims with an iron rod, due to which the victim Zeeshan @ Afsan sustained head injury and succumbed. The other victim were brought in the hospital from there they were referred to Trauma Center, Lucknow and were got admitted.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is alleged occurrence is happened on 29.08.2024 at 21 hours, while F.I.R. has been lodged after more then 28 hours on 30.08.2024, after due deliberation. He further submits that no specific role for causing injury to the victim has been attributed 2 CRLA No. 4106 of 2024 against the appellant, thus it is not ascertained, who inflicted the fatal blow to the deceased or injured. He next submits that initially F.I.R. was lodged under Section 110 B.N.S., then, it was converted into Section 109 B.N.S. and thereafter 103 B.N.S.

5. He next submits that from the side of the appellant an F.I.R. was also lodged against the deceased Zeeshan as well as the alleged injured Suraj and Sandeep, besides 6-7 unknown persons on 31.08.2024 at 19.08 hours bearing Crime No. 288 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 131, 352, 351(2), 324(4) and 333 B.N.S., Section 3(1) da, dha and Section 3(2) (5a) of the S.C./S.T. with regard to the same incident which took place on 29.8.2024 at 9.00 p.m.. After lodging of the F.I.R. of the appellant's side, the F.I.R. of the present case has been lodged. He also submits that as soon as the incident was caused against the appellant, he has informed the police on Police Control No. 112 through his mobile number, which shows his bona fide.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that as per medio legal report, death of the deceased was caused due to septicemia and the injury of the other injured persons have been found simple in nature. He next submits that the doctor has stated that the deceased was brought for the medical help by the attendant Aatif, who told that Zeeshan was assaulted by some persons and the accident of the vehicle was also caused, at that basis he noted the case of road traffic accident. He also submits that when Zeehan was initially examined at KGMU, Lucknow, it was diagnosed as a case of a pedestrian being hit by a four-wheeler

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that criminal history of the appellant has been explained in para No. 39 the Rejoinder Affidavit. It has been argued that the appellant is languishing in jail since 03.09.2024 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that 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.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 3182/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 286/2024, under Sections 103/352 B.N.S., Section 3(1) DA, DHA and 3(2) (5a) of 3 CRLA No. 4106 of 2024 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Gauriganj, District Amethi deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

10. Per Contra, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the appellant is the main culprit, who along with other accused persons abused with the castitious slurr and persuaded to informant's son. Any how he escaped, but thereafter the appellant with other co-accused having Iron Rod in their hands inflicted blows to the informant's son and informant's on Zeeshan had sustained injuries and fell down and other witnesses also became injured due to inflicted blow by the accused persons. As per the statement of injured Suraj specifically stated that the appellant/applicant and other accused persons persuaded and when he was escaping any how they prevent him and thereafter when he was passing on the way the accused persons inflicted blows through lathi, danda and iron rod. They next submits that the appellant has falsely prepared a cross case just to defend him. He further submits that the appellant has a criminal history, therefore, the accused/ appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant.

11. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, submissions of counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and c onsidering the facts and circumstance of the case and the fact that it is not disputed that there is a cross-case of same occurrence and they alleges against each otherat this juncture it is not proper to decide who is aggressor, which may be decided during trial. As per the F.I.R. the appellant along with other co-accused is attributed that they had inflicted blow through Iron Rod. No specific role of the appellant is mentioned in the F.I.R.. As per the eye- witnesses whose statements were recorded in Case Diary has been annexed have stated that five to six persons came from the vehicle and they were having lathi, danda and iron rod and they also inflicted blows to Zeeshan through their weapons. As per the primary medical report the injuries found on the body of the deceased was was diagnosed as a case of a pedestrian being hit by a four-wheeler. In autopsy, the cause of death of the deceased was found septicemia due to ante-mortem injuries, as ante-mortem injuries mentioned in post-mortem report. Criminal history has been explained in the Rejoinder affidavit as well as the fact that the appellant is in jail since 03.09.2024 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court of the view that the 4 CRLA No. 4106 of 2024 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.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 3182/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 286/2024, under Sections 103/352 B.N.S., Section 3(1) DA, DHA and 3(2) (5a) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Gauriganj, District Amethi is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant- Ankit Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties relating to his family members 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 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 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.

14. 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

15. 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. October 9, 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 the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and perused the entire 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 06.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 3182/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 286/2024, under Sections 103/352 B.N.S., Section 3(1) DA, DHA and 3(2) (5a) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Gauriganj, District Amethi, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

3. As per prosecution case, the complainant Islam lodged the F.I.R. alleging therein that while his son Zeeshan @ Afsar was coming back home on 29.08.2024 at about 9.00 p.m. along with his friends, namely, Suraj and Sandeep Kumar, the accused persons had planned to apprehend the victims and while the son of the complainant reached Kazipatti, the accused persons chased him, hurled abuses with castitious slurs, and issued threats. Any how complainant's son escaped from the place of occurrence, but subsequently they were apprehended near Jainul Dhaba. It has been alleged that subsequently, the accused persons again assaulted the victims with an iron rod, due to which the victim Zeeshan @ Afsan sustained head injury and succumbed. The other victim were brought in the hospital from there they were referred to Trauma Center, Lucknow and were got admitted.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is alleged occurrence is happened on 29.08.2024 at 21 hours, while F.I.R. has been lodged after more then 28 hours on 30.08.2024, after due deliberation. He further submits that no specific role for causing injury to the victim has been attributed 2 CRLA No. 4106 of 2024 against the appellant, thus it is not ascertained, who inflicted the fatal blow to the deceased or injured. He next submits that initially F.I.R. was lodged under Section 110 B.N.S., then, it was converted into Section 109 B.N.S. and thereafter 103 B.N.S.

5. He next submits that from the side of the appellant an F.I.R. was also lodged against the deceased Zeeshan as well as the alleged injured Suraj and Sandeep, besides 6-7 unknown persons on 31.08.2024 at 19.08 hours bearing Crime No. 288 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 131, 352, 351(2), 324(4) and 333 B.N.S., Section 3(1) da, dha and Section 3(2) (5a) of the S.C./S.T. with regard to the same incident which took place on 29.8.2024 at 9.00 p.m.. After lodging of the F.I.R. of the appellant's side, the F.I.R. of the present case has been lodged. He also submits that as soon as the incident was caused against the appellant, he has informed the police on Police Control No. 112 through his mobile number, which shows his bona fide.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that as per medio legal report, death of the deceased was caused due to septicemia and the injury of the other injured persons have been found simple in nature. He next submits that the doctor has stated that the deceased was brought for the medical help by the attendant Aatif, who told that Zeeshan was assaulted by some persons and the accident of the vehicle was also caused, at that basis he noted the case of road traffic accident. He also submits that when Zeehan was initially examined at KGMU, Lucknow, it was diagnosed as a case of a pedestrian being hit by a four-wheeler

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that criminal history of the appellant has been explained in para No. 39 the Rejoinder Affidavit. It has been argued that the appellant is languishing in jail since 03.09.2024 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that 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.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 3182/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 286/2024, under Sections 103/352 B.N.S., Section 3(1) DA, DHA and 3(2) (5a) of 3 CRLA No. 4106 of 2024 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Gauriganj, District Amethi deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during pendency of the trial.

10. Per Contra, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the appellant is the main culprit, who along with other accused persons abused with the castitious slurr and persuaded to informant's son. Any how he escaped, but thereafter the appellant with other co-accused having Iron Rod in their hands inflicted blows to the informant's son and informant's on Zeeshan had sustained injuries and fell down and other witnesses also became injured due to inflicted blow by the accused persons. As per the statement of injured Suraj specifically stated that the appellant/applicant and other accused persons persuaded and when he was escaping any how they prevent him and thereafter when he was passing on the way the accused persons inflicted blows through lathi, danda and iron rod. They next submits that the appellant has falsely prepared a cross case just to defend him. He further submits that the appellant has a criminal history, therefore, the accused/ appellant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant.

11. Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, submissions of counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 and c onsidering the facts and circumstance of the case and the fact that it is not disputed that there is a cross-case of same occurrence and they alleges against each otherat this juncture it is not proper to decide who is aggressor, which may be decided during trial. As per the F.I.R. the appellant along with other co-accused is attributed that they had inflicted blow through Iron Rod. No specific role of the appellant is mentioned in the F.I.R.. As per the eye- witnesses whose statements were recorded in Case Diary has been annexed have stated that five to six persons came from the vehicle and they were having lathi, danda and iron rod and they also inflicted blows to Zeeshan through their weapons. As per the primary medical report the injuries found on the body of the deceased was was diagnosed as a case of a pedestrian being hit by a four-wheeler. In autopsy, the cause of death of the deceased was found septicemia due to ante-mortem injuries, as ante-mortem injuries mentioned in post-mortem report. Criminal history has been explained in the Rejoinder affidavit as well as the fact that the appellant is in jail since 03.09.2024 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court of the view that the 4 CRLA No. 4106 of 2024 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.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 06.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 3182/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 286/2024, under Sections 103/352 B.N.S., Section 3(1) DA, DHA and 3(2) (5a) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Gauriganj, District Amethi is hereby set aside.

13. Let the appellant- Ankit Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties relating to his family members 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 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 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.

14. 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

15. 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. October 9, 2025 Arvind (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench