Mithilesh @ Sachin Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Court No. - 11

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 974 of 2025

Appellant :- Mithilesh @ Sachin Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajnish Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajnish Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

None appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 2 despite service.

¶7

The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act to set-aside order dated 19.03.2025 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act Pratapgarh in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 505 of 2025 (Mithilesh @ Sachin Tiwari Vs. State), arising out of Case Crime No. 285 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 307, 452, 352, 436 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1) (Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(Va), 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station- Sangipur, District- Pratapgarh by means of which the bail application of the appellant was rejected.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that the first information report dated 9.11.2021 has been lodged against 7 named and 5 to 6 unknown persons stating therein that on 08.01.2021 at about 09:30 A.M., the alleged persons came to the house of the first informant abusing her by caste and derogatory words. The first informant opposed them. They committed marpit by kicks and fits. On hearing the noise, her husband Udai Chand Saroj, brother-inlaw Phool Chand Saroj, sister-in-law Rama Devi and Atul Saroj came out of the house. So the appellant and other persons, who

¶9

had lathi and danda in their hands committed marpit with the husband of the first informant and gave a lathi blow to her husband Udai Chand Saroj, due to which he became unconscious. After that when the other villagers gathered then they set fire to the shed of the first informant and fled away from the spot.

¶10

After lodging of the first informant report, medical examination of the injured persons Udai Chand Saroj, Atul Saroj, Rama Devi, Phool Chand Saroj and Ranno Devi were conducted on 08.11.2021 and 09.11.2021. As per medical report of injured Udai Chand Saroj, one lacerated wound over frontal scalp, contusion over right eye and one lacerated wound over occipital scalp have been found. As per CT Scan report, fracture has been found on the skull and the discharge slip of SRN Hospital Prayagraj from 8.11.2021 to 17.11.2021 was collected after recording the statement of the injured Udai Chand Saroj and other prosecution witnesses.

¶11

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the appellant was not named in the FIR and only general role of marpit with the injured persons has been assigned to the accused(s). He further submits that since he was not named, therefore, no specific role has been attributed to the appellant also. It has further been submitted that there is a cross case also in the matter, in which the other side had also sustained injuries. It is further submitted that there is no possibility of the appellant of fleeing away after being released on bail or tampering with the witnesses. In case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail. Without considering the above, the bail application has been rejected. It has further been submitted that the appellant has no criminal history and the appellant is in jail since 15.02.2025. He further

¶12

submits that the co accused Satyam Shukla and another, who are named in the FIR have been enlarged on bail by means of the order dated 26.07.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 2022; Satyam Shukla and another vs. State of U.P. and another. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the appellant and submits that the allegations involved are very serious in nature and it cannot be said at this stage that the delay in lodging the F.I.R. is not fatal. But he could not point out any material to the contrary. He further submits that in case the appellant is released on bail, he will again indulge in similar activities and will misuse the liberty of bail.

¶14

After considering the facts of the present case, it prima facie appears that:

¶15

(a) The first information report has been lodged against the 7 named and 5 to 6 unknown persons;

¶16

(b) General role of committing marpit has been assigned against all, whereas the appellant is not named in F.I.R.;

¶17

(c) No specific role or involvement has been attributed to the present appellant;

¶18

(d) The appellant has no criminal history and except the present case no other adverse material could be shown against the appellant, on account of which the apprehension of learned AGA may be a ground at this stage.

¶19

It is a settled law that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of the evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, the

¶20

circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, his role and involvement in the offence, his involvement in other cases and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with.

¶21

Taking into account the totality of facts and keeping in mind, the ratio of the Apex Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Balchand @ Baliay (1977) 4 SCC 308, Gudikanti Narasimhulu And Ors., v. Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 429, Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh & Ors., (2002) 3 SCC 598, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 , the larger interest of the public/State and other circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of bail. Hence, the present appeal is allowed.

¶22

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed . The order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Pratapgarh is hereby set aside.

¶23

Let the appellant- Mithilesh @ Sachin Tiwari involved in the aforementioned case crime be released on bail, on his furnishing a personal bond and undertaking as stated above and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶24

(i) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, 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

(ii) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may

¶26

proceed against him under Section 269 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶27

(iii) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law.

¶28

(iv) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶29

(v) If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶30

Order Date :- 22.5.2025/Raj

¶31

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mithilesh @ Sachin Tiwari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithilesh @ Sachin Tiwari 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Muskan through Her Father Nibu Lal vs State of U.P. Thru Principal Sec. Home and 4 Others

Master Vishwam Dwivedi Thru. Maternal Grandfather Shri Sharda Prasad Tiwari and Anr. vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Bajrangi Lal Gupta Vs State of U.P.

Pooja Devi Thru. Her Husband Yagya Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Home), Lko and 3 Others

Kuldeep Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 6 Others

Smt. Rani Thru. His Husband Ajay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others