Babulal Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39917

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 352 of 2025 Appellant :- Babulal Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajendra Singh Chauhan,Akhand Pratap Singh,Manish Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶5

Notice upon opposite party No.2 is sufficient, as appears from the order of the Court dated 01.05.2025 as also from the report of the Incharge Inspector, Police Station Dalmau, District Raebareli which annexed along with the counter affidavit filed by the State, however, none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.2 to oppose the appeal.

¶6

Heard Shri Rajendra Singh Chauhan, 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 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 04.01.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No.3418 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.339 of 2024, under Sections 103 (1)/238 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Dalmau, District - Raebareli.

¶8

At the very outset learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the criminal history of 03 cases has been explained in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit dated 12.03.2025. The criminal history explained has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State based on the record.

¶9

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 only on account of the fact that the body of the deceased was recovered from the agricultural field of the appellant.

¶10

It is further stated that the story of the prosecution is false and concocted which can be deduced from the following facts :-

¶11

(a) In the application given by Sant Lal (brother of the

¶12

deceased) on 17.11.2024 at about 9.05 A.M. at Police Station Dalmau, District Raebareli no allegation was leveled against the appellant with regard to committing of crime as alleged in the F.I.R. The fact in the said application was indicated relates to working of the deceased in the agricultural field of the appellant.

¶13

(b) In terms of the application dated 17.11.2024 an entry in the G.D. dated 17.11.2024 at 9.05 was made and based on the same process of the inquest was carried out.

¶14

(c) Perusal of the inquest report indicates that the first informant Sant Lal (brother of the deceased) was one of the witnesses of the inquest and at the time of preparation of inquest report this witness has not leveled any allegation against the appellant with regard to committing of the crime.

¶15

(d) After completion of inquest report, the body of the deceased was medically examined on 17.11.2024 between 3.45 to 4.25 P.M. and a perusal of the post mortem report, Annexure No.3 to the present appeal, it would appear that for the purpose of confirmation of cause of death Viscera was preserved and the same was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for scientific examination. However, till date no report has been placed on record by the prosecution.

¶16

(e) Ante mortem injuries indicated in the post mortem report would prima facie show that the cause of death is not the injuries sustained by the deceased.

¶17

After the post mortem the mother of the first informant Sant Lal and the deceased Basant Lal, namely, Madhuri W/o Chhittan Lal Pasi lodged the F.I.R./Case Crime No.339 of 2024 dated 17.11.2024, detailed above, and the perusal of the F.I.R. annexed at page No.73 to 78 of the paper book would indicate that the prosecution changed the version by leveling the allegation against the present appellant including with regard to attract the offence under Section 238 of B.N.S.(akin to Section 201 I.P.C.) as also the offence under Section 103 (1) B.N.S. (akin to Section 302 I.P.C.).

¶18

It is further submitted that if the story of the prosectuion is taken on its face value, as indicated in the F.I.R. in the light of the statement of the witnesses of the prosecution including witness Dinesh Pasi S/o Shri Ram Pasi then the witness Dinesh Pasi could not be considered as witness of last seen, it is for the reason that according to this witness the appellant and the deceased were present at the liquor shop at about 5.00 P.M. and according to the post mortem report the process of which was

¶19

concluded at about 4.25, the time of death is about one day.

¶20

It is lastly submitted that in the aforesaid background of the case, the appellant is entitled to be released on bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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 as also that the present case is of circumstantial evidence, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance. It is accordingly allowed.

¶24

Order dated 04.01.2025, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Raebareli in Bail Application No.3418 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No.339 of 2024, under Sections 103 (1)/238 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3(2) V of SC/ST Act, P.S. - Dalmau, District - Raebareli is hereby set aside.

¶25

Let the appellant - Babu Lal Yadav be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a 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 :-

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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

¶29

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶30

(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.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

(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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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.

¶36

Order Date :- 14.7.2025

¶37

ML/-

¶38

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

Babulal Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babulal Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. 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

Ram Sunder vs Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Kumarganj, Faizabad and 3 Others

Mohd. Iliyas Ahmad vs the Addl.Commissioner Administration, Ayodhya Mandal, District Ayodhya and Others

Gauri Shankar Pal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin./ Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue, Lko. and Others

Suraj Gaud vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Akmal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. /Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 2 Others

Sarjo Agarwal and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt., Lko. and 3 Others