Shubham Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29899

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1860 of 2024

Appellant :- Shubham Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ashish Gulati,Abhilash Mishra,Yogendera Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

In deference to the previous order passed by this Court, learned AGA has filed an affidavit bringing on record the receipt.

¶7

Heard Shri Abhilash Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ajay Srivastava, learned AGA for the State. However, none appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2.

¶8

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No.347/2024 (Shubham Singh vs. State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 21 of 2023, under Sections 307 IPC and 3(2) 5 SC/ST Act, Police Station -Jagdishpur, District - Sultanpur.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that nobody is named in the FIR. However, subsequently, the appellant has been implicated in the case. It has further been submitted that the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet without proper investigation in a mechanical manner. It has further been submitted that the complainant has

¶10

been examined before the trial court as P.W.-1, but she has not supported the prosecution version, therefore, there is no possibility of conviction and the trial of the case in question is futile. It has further been submitted that the criminal antecedents of the appellant have been explained in paragraph32 of the affidavit in support of the bail application in which he is on bail. But without considering the above, the court below passed the impugned order. He further submits that the coaccused Raghuvir Singh @ Bhola Singh has been enlarged on bail by means of an order dated 05.03.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1635 of 2024; Raghuvir Singh @ Bhola Singh versus State of U.P. and another, by a coordinate bench of this Court. The offence under SC/ST Act is not made out. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant is in jail since 30.01.2024 and in case, the appellant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty granted by this Court, tamper with the evidence and undertakes to cooperate in the trial and assist the trial court in expeditious disposal of trial.

¶11

Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant and submits that after proper investigation the charge sheet was filed and the charge has been framed by the trial court. However, he could not dispute the deposition of P.W.-1 which is annexed with supplementary affidavit as Annexure-1. He also could not dispute that the P.W.-1 has not supported the prosecution version.

¶12

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on going through the records and the fact that the appellant was not named in the F.I.R. and P.W.-1 i.e. the complainant has not supported the prosecution case and the appellant has explained the criminal history as well as coaccused has been enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench of this

¶13

Court, this court is of the view that the impugned order which has been passed without considering the aforesaid facts is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside and a case for bail is made out in favour of the appellant.

¶14

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed . The impugned order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (P.A) Act, Sultanpur is hereby set aside .

¶15

Let the appellant- Shubham Singh involved in the aforementioned case crime be released on bail, on his 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:-

¶16

(i) 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.

¶17

(ii) 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.

¶18

(iii) 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 applicant fails 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.

¶19

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the

¶20

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.

¶21

(v) 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.

¶22

Order Date :- 20.5.2025 KR

¶23

Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shubham Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shujaul Hasan Vs Addl. Principal Judge Family Court, Faizabad / Ayodhya and 2 Others

Garima Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ram Kailash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and 9 Others

Babli Dixit Thru. Her Husband Dileep Bilthare Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Pooja and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Anita Devi Thru. Husband Zakir Ali @ Sanjay Arya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others