Naveen Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Naveen Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Release of appellant Naveen Singh on bail in Case Crime No. 243 of 2024, Police Station Nasirabad, District Raebareli, subject to nine conditions: (i) no tampering with evidence during trial; (ii) no pressurising/intimidating prosecution witnesses; (iii) no direct or indirect inducement, threat or promise to dissuade any person acquainted with the facts from disclosing them to the Court or police or to tamper with evidence; (iv)-(v) undertakings not to seek adjournments on dates fixed for evidence when witnesses are present, default treatable as abuse of bail liberty; (vi) presence before the trial court on each fixed date personally or through counsel, absence without sufficient cause attracting proceedings under Section 269 BNSS; (vii) misuse of bail liberty attracting Section 84 BNSS proclamation proceedings; (viii) personal presence at opening of case, framing of charge and recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS; (ix) deliberate or unexcused absence treatable as abuse of bail liberty.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant had any role in the incident, given that neither the FIR nor the informant's Section 180 B.N.S.S. statement attributes the shooting or the caste-related abuse to him, the firearm-carrying and abusive role being attributed to co-accused Arjun Yadav. +2 more

Court's answer

Learned AGA opposed the prayer for grant of bail but did not dispute the contention made by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had no role in the incident.

Ratio / Principle

Without commenting upon the merits of the case, this court found that the court below had failed to appreciate the material available on record, rendering its bail-rejection order liable to be set aside.

Key takeaways

The appeal is allowed and the bail-rejection order dated 16.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act Raebareli is set aside.ratio¶16
Appellant Naveen Singh is ordered released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number subject to nine enumerated conditions, including non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of prosecution witnesses, undertakings not to seek adjournments when witnesses are present, presence before the trial court on each fixed date and at case-opening, charge-framing and recording of statement under Section 351 BNSS, with liability to proceedings under Section 269 BNSS on unexcused absence and Section 84 BNSS proclamation proceedings on misuse of bail liberty.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 27) — Criminal Appeal No. 1500 of 2025 (neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:37314), decided 2.7.2025 by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J. Appeal against rejection on 16.04.2025, by the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act Raebareli, of Bail Application no. 901 of 2025 (Naveen Singh v. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 243 of 2024, Police Station Nasirabad, District Raebareli (offences under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352, 3 (5) of the B.N.S. Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989). Underlying FIR (11.08.2024): co-accused Arjun Yadav allegedly used caste-related slurs and shot dead the informant's son. Counsel argued that neither the FIR nor the informant's Section 180 B.N.S.S. statement mentions the appellant shooting anyone — the firearm and caste-slur roles being attributed to Arjun Yadav — and that cross-examination showed the appellant was the deceased's friend who had visited the home 10 to 20 times previously and had been there a day before the incident; the trial court had rejected bail mainly on injury-medical-evidence corroboration. Learned AGA opposed bail but did not dispute that the appellant had no role in the incident. Holding, without commenting upon merits, that the court below had failed to appreciate the material available on record, this Court set aside its order, allowed the appeal, and ordered the appellant's release on bail under nine conditions (non-tampering, non-intimidation, adjournment undertakings, presence at charge-framing and the Section 351 BNSS statement, with Section 269 and Section 84 BNSS safeguards against default or misuse).

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37314

Court No. - 27

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1500 of 2025

Appellant :- Naveen Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arpit Singh,Nasrul Hasan,Somdutta Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 passed in Bail application no. 901 of 2025 (Naveen Singh Vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 243 of 2024, under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352, 3 (5) of B.N.S. Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nasirabad, District Raebareli by the Court of Special Judge SC/ST Act Raebareli.

As per the service report dated 12.06.2025, the notice has personally been served upon the respondent no. 2 as per the report submitted by the C.J.M. dated 10.09.2025 but neither respondent no. 2 is present nor any counsel has put in appearance on his behalf.

The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was lodged on 11.08.2024 under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352 and 3/5 of B.N.S., as well as Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act of 1989 (amended in 2015), against seven named persons and five unnamed individuals, including the present appellant. The FIR alleges that the appellant, along with other co-accused persons, visited the informant's residence on 11.08.2024 and asked his son to accompany them, claiming that Vishal Singh (Block Pramukh Pratinidhi) was calling him. When the son resisted, Arjun Yadav, one of the co-accused, reportedly used casterelated slurs and threatened that if he would not come, he would be shot. Consequently, the son tried to flee, but Arjun Yadav shot him, resulting in his death.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that neither the FIR nor the informant's statement recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S. mentions that the appellant shot his son. In the

statement, the informant attributes the role of carrying the firearm to Arjun Yadav, who is also said to have used the casterelated slurs. During cross-examination, the informant acknowledged that the appellant was a friend of his son, having visited their home 10 to 20 times previously, and had been there a day before the incident, meaning thereby that appellant was not present on the day of the incident as alleged in the FIR and the statement given under Section 180 of B.N.S.S.

It is further submitted that the learned trial court has rejected the bail of appellant primarily on the ground that the injuries found on the deceased's body were corroborating with the medical evidence, without considering who actually used the firearm and uttered the caste-related words towards the deceased.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below has mis-appreciated itself in reading evidence on record. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 13.08.2024. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses.

Learned AGA has, however, opposed the prayer for grant of bail but he has not disputed the above contention made by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that the appellant has not been any role in the incident.

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, without commenting upon merits, it is found that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 16.04.2025 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Act Raebareli in Bail Application no. 901 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.243 of 2024, under Sections 191 (3), 103 (2), 352, 3 (5) of B.N.S. Act and Section 3 (2) (v) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nasirabad, District Raebareli is set aside.

Let appellant Naveen Singh be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number with the following conditions

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

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

(iii) The applicant 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.

(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

(v) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he 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.

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

(vii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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 him, in accordance with law.

(viii) The appellant 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.

(ix) If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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 him in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 2.7.2025 Ashish

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench