Rambabu vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rambabu vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellant (bail refused); trial court directed to expedite and conclude the trial preferably within a further eight months, with all stake holders bound to assist.

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused appellant Rambabu is entitled to bail on the two grounds urged in this second appeal - delayed trial and contradictions in the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2. +2 more

Court's answer

Since the merits of the appeal were already discussed in the first appellate order dated 23.11.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10568 of 2023, the appellant is virtually without any ground in his favour to allow the present appeal.

Ratio / Principle

No ground is made out to allow the present appeal and to release the accused appellant on bail; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Key takeaways

With the appeal pending at the stage of bail, it is not proper for this Court to make any comment on, or to point out contradictions in, the testimonies of the crucial witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2, as the trial may thereby be prejudiced.ratio¶14
The learned trial court is directed to make all possible endeavour to expedite the trial of the case and to conclude it expeditiously, preferably within a further period of Eight months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order before it.ratio¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.), Criminal Appeal No. 820 of 2025, decided 7.7.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:108581): Second bail appeal under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by Rambabu, seeking to set aside the bail rejection order dated 13.1.2025 of the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Court No.2, Shahjahanpur, in case crime no.297 of 2023 under Sections 306, 504 IPC and 3(2)V S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sindhauli, District Shahjahanpur. The first appeal (Criminal Appeal No.10568 of 2023) had been dismissed on merits on 23.11.2023. Grounds urged: delayed trial and material contradictions in the depositions of the two witnesses of fact (P.W.1 and P.W.2). Holding: at a stage when the evidence of crucial witnesses is being recorded, it is not proper for the Court to comment on witness testimonies or point out contradictions, as the trial may be prejudiced; no ground made out to allow the appeal or release the appellant; appeal dismissed. Directions: trial court to expedite and conclude the trial preferably within a further Eight months from presentation of the certified copy of the order; besides the Presiding Officer, all stake holders (police and executive authorities, counsels, parties, staff etc.) bound to assist in expeditious disposal.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108581

Court No. - 83

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 820 of 2025

Appellant :- Rambabu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Om Narayan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

Although notice has been served upon the opposite party no.2, but none present on his behalf.

This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Rambabu with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 13.1.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Court No.2, Shahjahanpur and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.297 of 2023 under Sections 306, 504 IPC and 3(2)V S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Sindhauli, District Shahjahanpur.

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

This is the second appeal moved by the accused appellant mainly on two grounds, out of which one is delayed trial and second is contradictions occurred in the statements of P.W.1 and P.W.2.

It is submitted that the first criminal appeal was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.11.2023 on merits and since then no witness was examined before the trial court and now two witnesses of fact have been examined and they are having material contradictions in their depositions. On the aforesaid two grounds, the appellant is entitled to bail by allowing the present criminal appeal.

Learned State counsel vehemently opposed the present appeal and it has been submitted that at this stage when the trial is going on and the evidence of the crucial witnesses is being recorded before the trial court, it is not proper for this Hon'ble Court to make any comment upon the testimonies of witnesses of fact or to

point out the contradictions occurred in their statements. It is further submitted that so far as the delayed trial is concerned, the trial court may be given another direction for the expeditious disposal of this case.

Since the merits of this appeal have already been discussed in the first appellate order dated 23.11.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.10568 of 2023, in fact the present appellant is virtually having no ground in his favour to allow the present appeal.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also keeping in view the fact that the present appeal is pending at the stage of bail, it should not be proper for this Court to make any comment or to point out any contradictions occurred in the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the crucial witnesses, and the trial may be prejudiced. No ground is made out to allow the present appeal and to release the accused appellant on bail.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed .

However, the learned trial court is directed to make all possible endeavour to expedite the trial of the case and to conclude it expeditiously, preferably within a period of further Eight months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before it.

It is also made clear that the Court / Presiding Officer is not the only stake holder in the trial and disposal of a case, hence, besides the P.O. concerned, all the stake holders i.e. police and executive authorities, counsels, parties to the case, staff etc. are also made bound by this order and it will be their responsibility also to assist the Court in every manner for the expeditious disposal of this case.

Order Date :- 7.7.2025

ss

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad