Brijesh Harijan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2025CRLA/1985/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail appeal; Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act 1989; Criminal Appeal 1985 of 2025; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Saurabh Lavania J.; order dated 31.7.2025; Third Bail Application No.1098 of 2025 set aside; Case Crime No.0009 of 2025; Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 110, 105 BNS 2023; PS Fatanpur, Pratapgarh; bail granted; personal bond Rs. 25,000/- plus two sureties of like amount; Section 313 Cr.P.C. condition.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; order dated 29.04.2025 of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh (Third Bail Application No.1098 of 2025) set aside; appellant Brijesh Harijan released on bail in Case Crime No.0009 of 2025 on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to stated conditions. ¶¶15

Brijesh Harijan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant Brijesh Harijan, aggrieved by the Special Judge's order dated 29.04.2025 on his Third Bail Application in Case Crime No.0009 of 2025, is entitled to be enlarged on bail in that case crime number.

¶¶10

Ratio / Principle

Considering that the trial of the case was not likely to be concluded in the near future, the Court found that the appeal had substance and accordingly allowed it, setting aside the order dated 29.04.2025 of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Third Bail Application No.1098 of 2025.

¶¶8

Key takeaways

The appellant Brijesh Harijan was directed to be released on bail in Case Crime No.0009 of 2025 on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two reliable sureties of the like amount, subject to conditions: cooperation with prosecution during trial; no tampering with evidence; no pressurising/intimidating of prosecution witness(es); no commission of offence; no inducement, threat or promise to dissuade disclosure of facts; presence before the trial court on each date fixed personally or through counsel; no adjournment when witnesses are present; and personal presence for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with default liable to be treated as abuse of liberty of bail.ratio¶¶15
It was clarified that the observations made in this bail order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case, and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.obiter¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1985 of 2025 — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Saurabh Lavania, J.; Order Date 31.7.2025). Appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 by Brijesh Harijan against the order dated 29.04.2025 of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Third Bail Application No.1098 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.0009 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 110, 105 of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station - Fatanpur, District - Pratapgarh. Counsel for the appellant urged false implication; absence of recovery of any iron rod allegedly used with one Mannu Vishwakarma; absence of eye-witnesses; inordinate delay of 08 days in lodging the F.I.R.; that on the prosecution story the offence would fall under Part II of Section 105 of BNS (akin to Section 304 Part II of I.P.C.) permitting benefit under the Probation of Offender Act, 1958; and that the appellant, in jail since 20.01.2025 with no criminal history, would cooperate in trial. Learned A.G.A. opposed but could not dispute these contentions. Finding the trial unlikely to conclude in the near future, the Court held the appeal had substance, allowed it, set aside the impugned order, and directed release on bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two reliable sureties of the like amount under enumerated conditions (including cooperation with prosecution, no tampering with evidence, no intimidation of witnesses, presence on fixed dates and personal presence for statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.), clarifying that its observations shall bear no relation to the merits.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44526

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1985 of 2025 Appellant :- Brijesh Harijan Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Chetan Kumar Tiwari,Prabhat Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Case called out. As per Annexure No.2 to the counter affidavit of the State, notice has been served upon the opposite party No.2. However, when the case is called out, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2. Learned AGA is present for the State.

¶6

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

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Third Bail Application No.1098 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.0009 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 110, 105 of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station - Fatanpur, District - Pratapgarh.

¶8

While pressing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per prosecution version the appellant and one Mannu Vishwakarma attacked the deceased with iron rod with intention to kill but there is no recovery of any iron rod. It is also submitted that there is no eye witness of the incident. The F.I.R. has been lodged with an inordinate delay of 08 days. Learned counsel for the appellant next submits that if the story of prosecution is taken on its face value, then the offence would fall under Part II of Section 105 of BNS, which is akin to Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. and therefore ultimately in terms of various pronouncements read with provisions of the Probation of Offender Act, 1958 the benefit could be extended to the appellant who is in jail since 20.01.2025 having no criminal history. In case of being enlarged on bail, he will not misuse the

¶10

liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial and would also not influence the prosecution witnesses. In these circumstances of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶11

Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

¶12

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents.

¶13

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.

¶14

Order dated 29.04.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh in Third Bail Application No.1098 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No.0009 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 110, 105 of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station - Fatanpur, District - Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.

¶15

Let the appellant - Brijesh Harijan be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶16

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶17

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶18

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶19

(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.

¶20

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶21

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates

¶22

fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶23

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶24

In case of default of above conditions it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶25

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶26

Order Date :- 31.7.2025

¶27

ML/-

¶28

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Brijesh Harijan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Harijan 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dr. Om Prakash vs Sri Ravindra Kumar, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Agricultural Edu. and Research Lko. and Others

Juvenile X Thru. His Natural Guardian, Mother Y vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Smt. Anara Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rajesh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Rang Shukla vs Sri Umesh Chandra Diwedi, Secy. Gram Panchayat Bhithaura, Gonda and Another

Smt. Ram Dulari and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another