Ram Raj Pasi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:43007

Court No. - 13

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 995 of 2025

Appellant :- Ram Raj Pasi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vineet Kumar Mishra,Arvind Kumar Misra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Akhilesh Kumar Shukla,Rajesh Kumar Agnihotri

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Vineet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Shri Rajesh Kumar Agnihotri, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

¶7

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 10.01.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 70 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 661 of 2024, under Section 103(1) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (in short "B.N.S."), P.S. Pihani, District - Hardoi.

¶8

For the purposes of coming to the conclusion in the instant case, this Court considered the following facts/submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, based upon material available.

¶9

(i) The FIR was lodgd on 14.10.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 0661 of 2024, at PS- Pihani, District - Hardoi under Section 103(1) BNS.

¶10

(ii) The FIR was lodged against unknown persons.

¶11

(iii) According to the FIR, the body of the deceased was found in the agricultural field of Ramadhar.

¶12

(iv) The deceased, at the time of the death, was aged about 65 years.

¶13

(v) The Investigating Officer (in short "IO"), after receiving information, prepared inquest report on 10.10.2024 at about 22:20 hours.

¶14

(vi) The witnesses of the inquest report are Ram Dayal and Ram Das, sons of late Rameshwar, Binda S/o Nandlal, Pushpendra S/o Ram Dayal and Rajiv Gupta S/o Rameshwar Dayal.

¶15

(vii) According to the opinion of witnesses of the inquest, the cause of death is on account of injuries caused by wild animal.

¶16

(viii) After the aforesaid, body of the deceased was sent for the purposes of post-mortem which was conducted by Dr. Dilip Kumar, CHC, Bawan, Hardoi and an opinion was given by Dr. Zeshan Khan at CHC, Shahabad, Hardoi.

¶17

(ix) According to the post-mortem report the cause of death is asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation.

¶18

(x) The IO reduced the statement(s) of prosecution witnesses in writing including witnesses of inquest report namely Ram Das (informant) and Pushpendra Kumar. These statements were recorded on 14.10.2024. On the same date, the statement of Netram was also recorded by IO.

¶19

(xi) In the aforesaid statements, no allegations were levelled against the accused-appellant.

¶20

(xii) On 15.10.2024, the IO recorded statement of Mamta, daughter-in-law of deceased and Mithun, son of deceased. In these statements also no allegations were levelled against the appellant.

¶21

(xiii) The statements of Bechalal, Touleram and Arvind Mishra recorded by IO on 15.10.2024 also indicate that they have not mentioned the name of the appellant.

¶22

(xiv) Statement of Binda and Rajiv Gupta, witnesses of the inquest report were recorded on 04.11.2024 i.e. after delay of about 25 days from the date of incident i.e. 10.10.2024. According to these statement(s) the appellant committed the crime for the reason that the appellant and the daugther-in-law of the deceased named above, were in illicit relations and the same was opposed by the deceased and therefore, the appellant committed the crime.

¶23

(xv) On 10.11.2024 i.e. after about 21 days from the date of incident i.e. 10.10.2024, the IO again recorded the statements of witnesses of inquest report namely Pushpendra and Shanker. According to these statements which were recorded after delay of 21 days the appellant committed the crime for the reason that the appellant and the daughter-in-law of the deceased named above were in illicit relations and the same was opposed by the

¶24

deceased and therefore, the appellant committed the crime.

¶25

(xvi) According to the prosecution the witnesses named above namely Binda and Rajiv Gupta are the witnesses of last seen. According to these witnesses the appellant committing crime with the help of one Arvind.

¶26

(xvii) However, it is to be noted from a perusal of the statements of these witnesses on record, it is apparent that these witnesses have not seen the deceased, accused-appellant Ram Raj Pasi and accused Arvind together .

¶27

Considered the aforesaid as also the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties including that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no link with the prosecution to connect the appellant with the crime as also that there is no witness of last seen and all the witnesses of prosecution who indicated the name of the appellant in the crime indicated in the FIR in relation to which the appellant is in jail since 13.11.2024 having no criminal history, which has not been opposed were recorded, after huge delay of about 2027 days which itself is fatal to the story of prosecution.

¶28

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances as also the period of incarceration 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 .

¶29

Order dated 10.01.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 70 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 661 of 2024, under Section 103(1) of B.N.S., P.S. Pihani, District - Hardoi is set aside.

¶30

Let appellant Ram Raj Pasi, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties of family members of the appellant each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶35

(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.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

(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.

¶39

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

¶40

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.

¶41

Before parting, it is relevant to observe that it is expected from the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously, as per law.

¶42

Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Mohit Singh/-

¶43

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

Ram Raj Pasi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Raj Pasi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. 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

Pramod Kumar Tiwari Vs Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court NO.9 Lucknow and Others

Ram Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Station Officer Maanpur Sitapur and Anr.

Sarvesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Sita Ram Vs State of U.P.

Rajjan Lal Gautam Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court Lucknow and 2 Ors.

Shiv Shanker Sharma Vs Additional Session Judge F.T.C. III Sultanpur and 2 Ors.