Zilajeet Prajapati Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Service of notice upon respondent no.2 is sufficient considering the order dated 14.08.2025 as also considering the Annexure No. CA-1 of Counter Affidavit filed by the State with a proof of service of notice upon respondent no. 3, this Court finds that service of notice upon the respondent no. 3 is also sufficient. However, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to oppose the present appeal. In this view of the matter, this Court proceeded to hear the instant appeal.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent.

¶14

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short "Act of 1989") against the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Computer Registration No. 949 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 311 of 2020, under Sections 323, 326, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)V of Act of 1989, P.S. Haiderganj, District - Ayodhya.

¶15

Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant was released on bail vide order dated 28.07.2021 passed in CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1098 of 2020 .

¶16

It is further submitted that on some dates fixed in the trial the appellant could not appear before the trial Court and in this regard request was made to the counsel conducting the trial for preferring the application and the application was moved before the trial seeking exemption from the personal appearance i.e. on 10.12.2021, 30.04.2022, 07.07.2022, 12.09.2022 and 22.02.2024. On 22.02.2024 the non-bailable warrant was issued and on coming to know about the aforesaid fact the appellant appeared before the trial Court and moved an application for recall of order dated 22.02.2024 whereby the non-bailable warrant was issued, however, the trial Court

¶17

CRLA No. 2171 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

rejected the application and took the appellant into custody.

¶20

It is stated that appellant would remain present on the date fixed and he would not misuse the liberty granted by the court and due to some unavoidable reasons he could not appear on the dates fixed.

¶21

Thus, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter.

¶22

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

¶23

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellantapplicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal and impugned order.

¶24

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the fact that bail was already granted by this Court also he has been in custody on account of nonappearance of the appellant before the trial Court as also the undertaking given by learned counsel for the appellant also 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 .

¶25

Order dated 28.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ayodhya in Computer Registration No. 949 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 311 of 2020, under Sections 323, 326, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)V of Act of 1989, P.S. Haiderganj, District - Ayodhya, is set aside.

¶26

Let the appellant- Zilajeet Prajapati , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each (one surety should be of her family member/close relative) of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶31

(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.

¶32

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

¶33

CRLA No. 2171 of 2025

¶34

3

¶35

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶36

(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.

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39

September 8, 2025 Mohit Singh/-

¶40

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶41

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

Zilajeet Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zilajeet Prajapati v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

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

Karan Bahadur Saroj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neeraj @ Anuj Tiwari Thru. Father Tribhuwan Nath Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Atul Dixit Thur. His Elder Brother Amit Dixit Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lahuri Prasad Kashyap and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Prema Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Society Anjuman Islahul Muslimeen, Thru. Secy. Syed Mohammmad Athar Nabi and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Lko. and 13 Others