CRLA/3239/2025 of NITIN VISHWAKARMA @ BITESH KUMAR Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. HOME LKO. AND 3 OTHERS on 11 December 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3239 of 2025 Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (Crl. Misc. Application No.01 of 2025) Heard, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record available to this application. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Raebareli, whereby the bail application (Bail Application No. 2385/25) of the appellant/applicant was rejected in Case Crime No. 270 of 2025, Under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 110, 117(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 3(1) Da, Dha of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Bhadokhar, District-Raebareli. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant, Nitin Vishwakarma @ Bitesh Kumar, has been falsely implicated in the present case, which arose out of a cross-case (FIR No. 270/2025 and FIR No. 271/2025). He submits that the opposite party, including Gaya Prasad, sustained a grievous injury (parietal bone fracture), confirming the incident was a mutual scuffle. The F.I.R. and statements assign only a general role of assault to the appellant, and the court records show no specific weapon or grievous injury is attributed to him. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the two co-accused, namely Brindavan Vishwakarma (father of the applicant) and Nitesh Vishwakarma, who were charged along with the applicant and had similar general roles arising out of the same incident, have already been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble Court vide a concurrent order passed in the very same Criminal Appeal No. 3223 of 2025. The order granting bail to the co-accused was passed primarily on the ground that the dispute was a cross- case and the necessary ingredients for invoking the S.C./S.T. Act were not fulfilled. Given that the two similarly placed co-accused, whose roles are indistinguishable from the applicant's general allegations of assault, have been granted bail, the present Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pravin Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Rakesh Pratap Singh Nitin Vishwakarma @ Bitesh Kumar .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)

applicant is likewise entitled to be released on the principle of parity. The applicant has been in jail since 07.08.2025 and undertakes to appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and will not misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses. Per Contra learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is the main accused in the assault and that the principle of parity may not apply since he was directly involved in the action leading to the injury. Consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., this Court finds that the co-accused, namely Brindavan Vishwakarma and Nitesh Vishwakarma, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court in the present case. The Court further notes that the allegations against the applicant are of a general nature and not distinct from the role attributed to the co-accused already granted bail; therefore, without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, and considering the applicant's undertaking and the strong applicability of the principle of parity with the co-accused who have already been granted bail, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Raebareli, arising out of Case Crime No. 270 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 110, 117(2) B.N.S. and Section 3(1) Da, Dha of the S.C./S.T. Act, 1989, Police Station-Bhadokhar, District-Raebareli, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant, Nitin Vishwakarma @ Bitesh Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 270 of 2025, upon his furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial.

(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the 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. CRLA No. 3239 of 2025

(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. 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. 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. December 11, 2025 Haseen U. CRLA No. 3239 of 2025

(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench