CRLA/2657/2025 of SHANI VERMA Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND 2 OTHERS on 8 December 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2657 of 2025 Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. Vide order dated 27.08.2025, the notices were issued to opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 and as per office report the same have been served personally upon them. Today when the case is taken up, neither counsel on behalf of opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 is present nor any counter on their behalf has been filed, therefore, this Court has no option but to proceed in the matter to decide the instant appeal. 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 04.03.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 401 of 2025, in Case Crime No. 478 of 2024, under Sections 191(1), 191(2), 191(3), 103(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS and Section 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sheo Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Devendra Kumar Singh, Madhulika Yadav, Manisha Yadav Shani Verma .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that no specific role has been assigned in the FIR. He next submits that the co-accused persons, namely, Vijay Verma and Rahul Verma, having graver role than that of present appellant, have already been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.12.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 518 of 2025 and, as such, the present appellant is also entitled to be released on bail. He next submits that appellant has a case criminal history which is subsequent to the present case and he is languishing in jail since 17.11.2024. He added that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall 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. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant is involved in commission of the offence and, as such, he 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 appellant. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, including the allegations made in the FIR, it transpires that the appellant no specific role has been assigned to the appellant; the co-accused, having graver role than that of present appellant, have already been enlarged on bail and the appellant is languishing in jail since 17.11.2024 and he has undertaken that in case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial. Without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 04.03.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Pratapgarh in Bail Application No. 401 of 2025, in Case Crime No. 478 of 2024, under Sections 191(1), 191(2), 191(3), 103(2), 352, 351(3) of BNS and Section 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Lalganj, District Pratapgarh, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Shani Verma be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following additional 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.

(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 8, 2025 kkv/

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