Allahabad High Court
Vimal Kumar Dubey vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 November, 2025
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:202718 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 149 of 2025 Vimal Kumar Dubey .....Appellant(s) Versus State Of U.P. And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) :
Rakesh Kumar Mathur Counsel for Respondent(s) :
G.A., Sushil Kumar Court No. - 86 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
2.The present Criminal Appeal, filed under Section 14-A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the SC/ST Act"), assails the order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jalaun at Orai, in Complaint Case No. 43 of 2019 (Special Sessions Trial No. 47 of 2023).
3.By the impugned order, the court below rejected Application No. 146-Kha, moved by the appellant/accused, Vimal Kumar Dubey, seeking permission to be treated as on bail during trial on the strength of a personal bond alone. The appellant has been summoned to face trial under Sections 328, 304 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.
4.The record reflects that the appellant earlier challenged the summoning order dated 20.09.2023 by filing Criminal Appeal No. 11782 of 2023. The said appeal was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 27.08.2024 with directions to the trial court to expedite and conclude the complaint case (SST No. 47 of 2023) within twelve months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order. It was further directed that, in view of the assurance of cooperation extended by the appellant, no coercive action shall be taken against him during the pendency of the complaint case. Significantly, the summoning order dated 20.09.2023 was not set aside.
5.The appellant contends that pursuant to the order dated 27.08.2024, he served the copy of the order before learned Trial Court on 24.09.2024 and the date was fixed in the case as 25.10.2024. On 25.10.2024 the appellant remained absent from the proceedings without giving any application to the learned Special Judge. Thereafter, learned Trial Court fixed next date as 12.11.2024. Again on 12.11.2024 the appellant did not move any application regarding his absence, hence the trial court issued summon against the appellant and fixed 19.11.2024 as next date. On 19.11.2024, the appellant moved an application bearing 146 Kha, which is annexed as Annexure No. 18 to the affidavit, which reveals that the appellant has prayed to the trial court that he is ready to furnish the personal bond for his presence during trial and also prayed that it could be considered as bail.
6.The learned A.G.A., however, submits that the appellant has not moved any regular bail application nor furnished sureties, and without such appearance in the legal sense, charges could not be framed. It is urged that the order dated 27.08.2024 did not amount to grant of bail or any direction to release the appellant on personal bond; it merely protected him from coercive action subject to cooperation and did not dilute the effect of the summoning order.
7.Having examined the record, the impugned order, and the previous order dated 27.08.2024 passed by this Court, it is evident that the direction restraining coercive action was intended as a protective measure to ensure the appellant's voluntary participation in the trial. It was not, and could not be construed as, a substitute for an order granting regular bail. The said protection did not absolve the appellant of the obligation to seek bail in accordance with law, nor did it operate to release him on a personal bond without judicial consideration of the charges.
8.The offences with which the appellant is charged?particularly Sections 328 and 304 IPC, along with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act?carry severe penal consequences, including a maximum sentence of life imprisonment under the SC/ST Act. Given the gravity of the offences and the statutory scheme, the trial court rightly concluded that release on the basis of a personal bond alone, without a formal bail application and without sureties, would be inappropriate and contrary to law. The order of this Court dated 27.08.2024 did not dilute the seriousness of the allegations nor dispense with the procedural requirement of seeking regular bail. The summoning order, having never been set aside, continues to operate.
9. It must further be noted that the protection granted by this Court against coercive action in its order dated 27.08.2024 did not, in any manner, dispense with the statutory requirement of obtaining bail. The appellant remained under a legal obligation to appear before the trial court and furnish a proper bail bond with sureties in accordance with law. Once the Criminal Appeal referred to above was disposed of without granting the primary relief of quashing the summoning order, no interim relief in the nature of bail or deemed bail could, by any stretch of interpretation, be inferred. The Hon?ble Apex Court in Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 10 SCC 118 has clearly held that when a petition challenging the summoning order or FIR itself is not entertained on merits, the grant of protective interim relief is impermissible. Therefore, the only reasonable and lawful interpretation of the order dated 27.08.2024 is that, pursuant to his own assurance of cooperation, the appellant was obliged to appear before the trial court and seek regular bail, and the direction restraining coercive action merely facilitated such voluntary appearance without diluting the effect of the summoning order.
10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or infirmity in the order dated 12.12.2024 rejecting Application No. 146-Kha. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
12.However, it is open to the appellant to move a regular bail application before the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jalaun at Orai. If such an application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits. The learned Special Judge is further reminded of the directions issued by this Court on 27.08.2024 to expedite and conclude the trial within the stipulated period of twelve months.
(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) November 14, 2025 A.