CRLA/1488/2025 of SUSHEEL YADAV Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO AND ANOTHER on 11 December 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1488 of 2025 Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (Crl. Misc. Application No.1 of 2025) Counter affidavit is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State. This Criminal Appeal, filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenges the order dated 11.02.2025 (and subsequent rejection dated 11.03.2025), passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Lucknow, rejecting the bail application of the appellant, Susheel Yadav, in connection with Case Crime No. 233 of 2024, under Sections 103(2), 238(b), 3(5), 60 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Rahimabad, District Lucknow. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated due to village enmity and is innocent. He submits that the FIR was lodged by the complainant, Ravindra Prasad, on 13.12.2024 for an incident that occurred on 25.11.2024, which is highly delayed. He also submits that the police have cooked up a false story and prepared a false recovery memo. The counsel next submits that the deceased, Prem Kumar, died due to Asphyxia caused by Antemortem Drowning. Crucially, the main co-accused, Khushbu Devi, has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 03.03.2025, and other co-accused, Ram Rani (vide order dated 20.03.2025) and Buddhi Lal (vide order dated 16.10.2025), have also been granted bail. The role of the present appellant is not graver than the co-accused who have been bailed. The appellant has been languishing in jail since 15.12.2024 and has no criminal history. The counsel further submitted that if the appellant is enlarged on bail, he will fully cooperate in the trial, will not misuse the liberty of bail, and will not affect the trial or exert any pressure on the evidence or witnesses. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Prem Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Umesh Singh Lodhi Susheel Yadav .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another .....Respondent(s)

Per contra, the Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that the Post-Mortem Report shows two antemortem contusions on the deceased's head and that the deceased's stomach contained 200 ml mud mixed dirty fluid. The A.G.A. submits that the appellant, along with co-accused, committed the murder and threw the corpse into a well to suppress evidence. It is further submitted that the role of the appellant is not similar to the co-accused who were granted bail, as his bail was previously rejected and he is the principal accused. If enlarged on bail, he will influence witnesses and tamper with evidence. The learned AGA expressed apprehension that if the applicant is granted bail, he will influence the trial and intimidate the witnesses.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, the Court finds that the occurrence is stated to have happened on 25.11.2024, while the FIR was lodged after a significant delay on 13.12.2024. The Post-Mortem Report confirms the cause of death as Asphyxia due to Antemortem Drowning. Furthermore, the main co- accused, Khushbu Devi, was granted bail primarily on the sympathetic consideration that her two minor children were in an abandoned condition, and other co-accused, Ram Rani and Buddhi Lal, have also been enlarged on bail. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the role attributed to the appellant, Susheel Yadav, the fact that co-accused have been granted bail, his period of detention since 15.12.2024, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail, having assured the court that he will cooperate in the trial and will not affect the course of justice. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.02.2025 and 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Lucknow, is set aside. Let the appellant- Susheel Yadav, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 233 of 2024 on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following additional conditions: The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). The appellant shall not commit any offence similar to the one he is accused of. 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. The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. CRLA No. 1488 of 2025

The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. 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. 1488 of 2025

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