Pradeep Alias Shyamu Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶12

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act') against the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sitapur in Bail Application No.88 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.38 of 2024, under Sections 354(A), 354(B), 504, 506, 376 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Machrehta, District- Sitapur.

¶13

While pressing the present appeal, it is stated that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant case.

¶14

It is further stated that the prosecutrix/victim-opposite party no.2, who is aged about 26 years, has already been examined before the trial court and the trial court has declared the victim as hostile witness and thereafter the victim was cross-examined by the prosecution and in the cross-examination nothing could be elicited against the appellant.

¶15

It is further stated that no medical evidence is available with the prosecution to establish its case before the trial court.

¶16

It is further stated that the appellant is languishing in jail since 19.02.2025

¶17

CRLA No. 920 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

and criminal history of eight cases has been explained in para no.29 of the affidavit filed in support of first bail application. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant.

¶21

Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and all the relevant documents placed on record.

¶22

Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., impugned order, taking note of the allegations levelled in the FIR as also the fact that (i) the prosecutrix/victim-opposite party no.2, aged about 26 years, has already been examined before the trial court and she has been declared hostile by the trial court and she was also cross-examined by the prosecution, but in the cross-examination nothing could be elicited against the appellant, (ii) no medical evidence is available with the prosecution to establish its case before the trial court, and (iii) the period of incarceration and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed .

¶23

Order dated 17.03.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sitapur in Bail Application No.88 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.38 of 2024, under Sections 354(A), 354(B), 504, 506, 376 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Machrehta, District- Sitapur is hereby set aside.

¶24

Let the appellant- Pradeep alias Shyamu Shukla be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

CRLA No. 920 of 2025

¶28

3

¶29

(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).

¶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

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

¶34

(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.

¶35

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

¶36

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) 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(s) made in this order.

¶37

August 27, 2025

¶38

Anand/-

¶39

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶40

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

Pradeep Alias Shyamu Shukla v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Alias Shyamu Shukla 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

Rati Pal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Deptt. of Home Lucknow and Anr.

Mohit Rawat Minor Thru. Father Mahesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Upendra Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Juvenile X Thru. His Mother vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Vijay Ram Verma vs State of U. P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Krishan Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another