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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 418 of 2026

Kashiram

.....Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Shyamji Dixit, Pramendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Ratnesh Trivedi, Vibhuti Narayan

¶7

Court No. - 12

¶8

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Ms. Vibhuti Narayan, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶10

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with a prayer to set aside order dated 06.01.2026 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lakhimpur Kheri on Bail Application No. 565/2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 363 of 2025, under Sections 3(5), 191(2), 238 बी, 103(1), 352, 351(3) BNS [corresponding Sections 34, 147, 201, 302, 504, 506 IPC] & Sections 3(1) द, 3(1)ध, 3(2)5 a, 3(2)V of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Palia, District Lakhimpur Kheri rejecting bail to appellant.

¶11

As per contents of First Information Report, the incident is said to have taken place on 27.08.2025 when the informant's son Karan went missing after accompanying his maternal-uncle to his house after medical attention. It is stated that when the said Karan did not return, informant and her family members searched for him and on 28.08.2025, they were informed with regard to recovery of a dead body which was identified as the informant's son Karan. The averments of F.I.R. clearly indicate suspicion being cast upon the appellant and co-accused in view of the fact that deceased Karan

¶12

CRLA No. 418 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

was having an affair with the daughter of appellant.

¶15

Learned counsel for appellant submits that he has been falsely implicated on allegations levelled against him and a perusal of F.I.R. will reveal that criminal case has been lodged and he has been taken into custody only on the basis of suspicion without corroborating evidence. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. even otherwise has been lodged belatedly after two days which clearly indicates deliberation. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has been filed recording statements of alleged witnesses who also are not eyewitnesses and have only corroborated the aspect of suspicion upon the appellant. It is submitted that alleged recovery of shoes and Aadhar Card & one brick was at the instance of co-accused Sonu @ Sonelal and Deependra Kumar @ Golu but the same also did not indicate any independent witness. It is also submitted that arrest has taken place due to mobile location of appellant, which however is within 5-6 kms. and cannot be attributed to the specific place where the incident has occurred. It is submitted that appellant without any previous criminal history is under incarceration since 14.11.2025.

¶16

Learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned Counsel for respondent No.2 have opposed the appeal with submission that although F.I.R. has been lodged only on the basis of suspicion but subsequently charge-sheet was filed and arrest has taken place due to recovery of Aadhar Card and shoes of deceased at the instance of family members of appellant. It is also submitted that as per mobile record, appellant's presence near the place of occurrence of the incident was also established. Learned Additional Government Advocate however admits that appellant has no previous criminal history.

¶17

In view of submissions, at this stage, without entering into the merits of case and subject to evidence in trial, it appears that F.I.R. has been lodged after delay of almost two days and only on the basis of suspicion being cast upon the appellant due to alleged affair between daughter of Ram Khelavan, co-accused and the deceased. It is also evident that no specific role has been assigned to the appellant in causing death of son of informant. There does not appear to be any incriminating article recovered from the appellant or at his

¶18

CRLA No. 418 of 2026

¶19

3

¶20

instance. The recovery allegedly made is at the instance of other family members and the aspect of any independent witness would also require consideration. At this stage, it appears that there is no corroborating evidence with regard to suspicion having been cast upon the appellant who without any previous criminal history is under incarceration since 14.11.2025.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, without commenting on merits and subject to evidence, I am of the view that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.

¶22

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order dated 06.01.2026 is set aside.

¶23

Let appellant/applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶24

(i) The appellant/applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial

¶25

(ii) The appellant/applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶26

(iii) The appellant/applicant 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶27

(iv) The appellant/applicant 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.

¶28

CRLA No. 418 of 2026

¶29

4

¶30

(v) The appellant/applicant 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 proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

¶31

(vi) In case, the appellant/applicant misuses the liberty of ball during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the appellant/applicant fails 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, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

¶32

Pending applications if any too stand disposed of.

¶33

April 2, 2026 lakshman

¶34

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶35

Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Kashiram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashiram v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of 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

Motilal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture Evam Food Processing Deptt., Lko. and 3 Others

Shiv Saran Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and Another

Gauri Shankar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Kaustubh Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Law and Legal Remembrancer and 3 Others

Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Kumar Mishra and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Head Constable , PNO-112465067, Hakim Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others