Allahabad High Court
Monu Singh @ Amit Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 27 May, 2025
Author: Rajnish Kumar
Bench: Rajnish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:31595 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 966 of 2025 Appellant :- Monu Singh @ Amit Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Dhananjai Kumar Tripathi,Alok Kumar Mishra,Anjali Pandey,Sheo Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.
1. Heard Shri Alok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State. None appeared on behalf of the respondents no.2 to 6.
2. As per office report, notice has been served upon respondent nos.2 to 6 personally.
3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur in Bail Application No. 21/2025 arising out of Case Crime No.451 of 2024, under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 333, 351(2), 352, 105, 117(4), 3(6) BNS and 3(2) (v), 3(1)da, 3(1)dha SC/ST Act, Police Station - Khairabad, District - Sitapur.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have falsely been implicated in the case on account of old enmity and village party bandi. He further submits that there are cross-cases in regard to the incident, therefore, an FIR No.450 has been lodged by them on 27.10.2024 at 21:45 hours, whereas the present FIR has been lodged subsequently on the same day at 21:58 hours. He further submits that no specific role has been assigned to the appellants and only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused. He further submits that there are five injured, namely, Rajesh, Madan Lal, Smt. Nema, Narayan and Kiran and one Vinay Kumar has died. In regard to him, he submits that he died on account of falling from the roof as he had only one head injury. The injury to the Kiran and Narayan are simple in nature. Rajesh and Madan Lal and Smt. Nema were referred for X-ray but in the X-ray, no bone injury has been found on the body of Madan Lal and Nema whereas Rajesh has been detected a fracture in Fibula bone. Since only general role has been assigned to all the accused and no specific role has been assigned to the appellants, therefore, it cannot be said that the deceased died and fracture to injured is by the appellants. He further submits that the appellants have no criminal history and case under S.C.&S.T. Act is not made out, but without considering it, the court below has passed the impugned order and rejected the bail application. He further submits that in case, the appellants are granted the liberty of bail, they shall not misuse the liberty granted by this Court as there is no chance of their absconding. He further submits that the appellants shall cooperate in the trial and undertake to assist the trial court in expeditious disposal of trial.
5. Learned AGA vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants. However he could not contradict the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and he fairly submits that no specific role has been assigned to the appellants and only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused.
6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records and considering the fact that only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused and no specific role has been assigned to the appellants, therefore, it cannot be said at this stage as to on whose assault Rajesh has suffered fracture and the deceased died and also the appellants have no criminal history, the court below has failed to consider the same, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and a case for bail is made out in favour of the appellants.
7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Sitapur is hereby set aside.
8. Let the appellants- Monu Singh alias Amit Singh and Teelu alias Abhay Singh involved in the aforementioned case crime be released on bail, on their furnishing a personal bond and undertaking as stated above and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions:-
(i) The appellants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel. In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
(iii) In case, the appellants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law.
(iv) The appellants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
(v) If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellants is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against them in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 27.5.2025 KR