Toofan Raja vs State of U.P. and Another

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been preferred by the appellant - Toofan Raja with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 31.10.2025 passed by Addl. District & Session Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act). Lalitpur, and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 308 of 2025, Under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 119(k)(1), 123 BNS and Sections 3(1) (D), (DHA), 3(2) (V), 3(2) (VA), 3(1) (J) OF THE SC/ST Act, 1989, Police Station - Mahroni, District - Lalitpur.

¶12

Learned counsel for appellant submitted that appellant is innocent and he was not involved in alleged offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. Informant who himself is injured ,lodged FIR against appellant and two other accused persons alleging that he was assaulted and abused by the appellant and other co-accused persons at about 3:00 pm on on 16.07.2025 when he was in his fields. He has also alleged that he sustained serious injuries after he got assaulted by appellant and other accused persons.

¶13

It is further submitted that initially the FIR was lodged against appellant under Section 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of BNS. However, allegation of administering poison to informant was introduced during the investigation on basis of statement of other alleged eye witnesses as well as informant/injured . Injury report relied upon by informant clearly indicates that he has sustained simple injuries. It is also apparent that allegation of

¶14

CRLA No. 10672 of 2025

¶15

2

¶16

administering poison to informant was introduced at the later stage of investigation which suggests that it was introduced by informant with intent to amplify the magnitude of the earlier allegations.

¶17

If such an offence had truly been committed, there was a valid reason to omit its allegation from the FIR lodged by the informant.Therefore, it is evident that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by introducing allegation of administering poison at belated stage of investigation.

¶18

Sri Acharya Rajesh Tripathi, learned AGA opposed the bail application and submitted that the statement of Badri Prasad, who happened to be eye witness and son of the informant is on record and it reveals that injured was forced by the appellant to consume insecticide, hence the appellant is not entitled to bail.

¶19

Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer.

¶20

I have considered the rival submissions so made and have gone through the entire record. Perused the case diary which shows that the injured himself has lodged the FIR by making a bare allegation that he was assaulted and abused by the appellant and other co-accused persons. Even, when his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer, no such allegation of administering insecticide was made by the informant/injured, Hence ,this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

¶22

Let the appellant - Toofan Raja involved in Case Crime No. 308 of 2025, Under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 119(k)(1), 123 BNS and Sections 3(1) (D), (DHA), 3(2) (V), 3(2) (VA), 3(1) (J) OF THE SC/ST Act, 1989, Police Station - Mahroni, District - Lalitpur, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

¶23

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶24

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶25

CRLA No. 10672 of 2025

¶26

3

¶27

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶28

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

¶29

(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.

¶30

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court concerned shall be at liberty to take appropriate coercive action for appearance of the accused or to cancel the bail granted.

¶31

December 16, 2025 S.K.S.

¶32

(Anil Kumar-X,J.)

¶33

Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Toofan Raja v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Toofan Raja v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raju vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Gulafsha vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Varsha Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Shashank Singh Bhadauriya Alias Shashank Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Manju Lata and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Priti vs State of U.P. and 4 Others