Chandrasen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36265

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1727 of 2025

Appellant :- Chandrasen Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant learned A.G.A. and perused the entire record.

¶7

2. Vide order dated 05.06.2025, notice was directed to be issued to respondent No.2, which has been served upon him as per office report dated 20.06.2025. However, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶8

3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶9

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence. He further submits that for the protection of his crop, the appellant had surrounded his field with wire to prevent animals from entering. The deceased, while riding

¶10

a motorcycle, collided with the wire and sustained injuries. Later on, he died. As a result, the present case was registered against the appellant.

¶11

5. His further submission is that there was no intention or knowledge on the part of the appellant to cause injury likely to result in the death of the deceased, and that the wire was placed solely for the protection of his crop from animals. He also submits that, in this regard, an application was submitted by Sone Lal to the police station.

¶12

6. His next submission is that the learned trial court did not consider all these facts while deciding the bail application and rejected it by order dated 07.05.2025. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality, warranting interference by this Court.

¶13

7. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid.

¶14

8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶15

9. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State, perusal of the record, the information given by the informant, Sone Lal, to the police station, and the contents of the F.I.R., it appears

¶16

that the deceased collided with the wire surrounding the appellant’s field, which was installed for protection from animals, and sustained injuries as a result of which he died. There is no criminal antecedent against the appellant, and he has been in jail since 07.04.2025. The trial court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order dated 07.05.2025 suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

¶17

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

¶18

11. Let the appellant- Chandrasen involved in Case Crime No.137 of 2025, under Section 105 B.N.S. and Sections 3(2)V SC/ST Act, Police Station Isanagar, District Kheri be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties 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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court

¶22

on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶26

[Subhash Chandra Sharma, J.]

¶27

Order Date :- 24.6.2025 cks/-

¶28

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandrasen v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrasen v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko 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

Sukh Veer Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Rijavan @ Rijavan Banjara and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Shivam Kumar Vishwakarma @ Shivam Vishkarma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rahul Verma Vs Addl. Magistrate Faizabad and Another

Ram Abhilakh @ Ram Abhilash and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Yusuf Ali and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lko and Anr.