Umakant Chaubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

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 10.02.2026 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh on Bail Application No. 4348/2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 131 of 2025, under Sections 108, 352, 351(2), 351(3) BNS and Sections 3(1) द, 3(1)ध, 3(2) va, 3(2)v of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Kandhai, District Pratapgarh rejecting bail to appellant.

¶14

As per contents of First Information Report, informant's daughter, i.e., deceased was in a relationship with the main accused Anshuman Chaubey, who on false pretext of marriage physically exploited her and with regard same, Case Crime No. 83 of 2025 had been filed against him. It is alleged that the said Anshuman Chaubey was thereafter enlarged on bail on 03.06.2025 whereafter on 04.06.2025 at about 7 a.m., the appellant alongwith co-accused are said to have

¶15

CRLA No. 595 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

reached the house of informant and threatened the deceased alongwith her family members. Caste based insults were also allegedly hurled.

¶18

It is stated that at about 10.55 hours, the informant came to know from one Ayush Rahul about the body of informant's daughter hanging from a tree.

¶19

It is submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated on allegations levelled against him and a perusal of FIR will reveal that deceased was in a relationship with the main accused Anshuman Chaubey. It is submitted that the deceased in fact had committed suicide and is not the case of murder which could be evident from post-mortem report which clearly indicates the nature of ligature mark which could have arisen only as a result of hanging. It is submitted that the post-mortem report also does not indicate any other external injuries on the body. It is further submitted that there is no eyewitness account of the incident. Earlier criminal history of one case of appellant has been duly explained while he is under incarceration since 11.11.2025.

¶20

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the appeal with submission that the statement of Chief Medical Officer has clearly indicated that ligature mark can arise only in case of throttling and not as a result of suicide. It is however admitted that the body did not have any other external injury and the previous criminal history of appellant has duly been explained.

¶21

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, at this stage, without entering into the merits of case and subject to evidence in trial, it appears that although the body was found hanging from a tree and allegations of threat immediately prior to the death have been made in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of informant but the postmortem report only indicates ligature mark which may be proximate cause of death the factum of which would require to be explained during the course of trial. The body also did not have any external injuries. The aforesaid aspects were required explanation during the course of trial. The appellant with one case has been duly explained

¶22

CRLA No. 595 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

is under incarceration since 11.11.2025.

¶25

In view of what has been stated above, 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.

¶26

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order dated 10.02.2026 is set aside.

¶27

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:-

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

(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.

¶31

(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.

¶32

(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).

¶33

CRLA No. 595 of 2026

¶34

4

¶35

(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).

¶36

Pending applications if any too stand disposed of.

¶37

April 23, 2026 lakshman

¶38

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶39

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

Umakant Chaubey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umakant Chaubey 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

Thakur Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Reeta Devi and 5 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Personnel) Lko. and 3 Others

Manoj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Meena Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Child Development and Pushtahar Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Avadhesh Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and Another

Geeta vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 5 Others