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

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to set aside order dated 24.02.2026 passed by Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Sitapur on Bail Application No. 41 of 2026, in Case Crime No. 05 of 2026, under Sections 109 (307 IPC), 118(2) (326 IPC), 115(2) (323 IPC), 352 (504 IPC), 351(3) (506 IPC), 190 (149 IPC), 191(2) (147 IPC), 191(3) (148 IPC), 3(5) (34 IPC) BNS 2023 and Section 3(2)V Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 relating to Police Station Naimisharanya, District Sitapur. Further, a prayer has been made to enlarge the appellants on bail in the said case crime.

¶13

As per contents of F.I.R., incident is said to have taken place on 04.01.2026 at about 11 AM when the appellants along with 29 other persons is said to have entered into an altercation with the complainant and family members with regard to dispute of agricultural property. Allegation has been levelled that aforesaid persons disrupted agricultural activities on the said plot and threatened and sought to intimidate the complainant and his family members also by making caste based insults. It has been alleged that upon exhortation

¶14

CRLA No. 637 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

of the appellants and others, one Rajesh Gupta is said to have opened fire upon Indrapal and Shailendra due to which the said persons suffered grievous injuries.

¶17

Learned counsel for appellants submits that except for the role of exhortation, there is no allegation levelled against appellants of having uttered any caste-based insult against the complainant or his family members. The role of firing has also been assigned to Rajesh Gupta. He has also adverted to the statement of injured, Shailendra under section 180 BNS to submit that the injured has also not indicated any role of appellants in making any caste-based insults or having any role in causing injury to two persons. It is submitted that appellants without previous criminal history are under incarceration since 04.01.2026.

¶18

Learned Additional Government Advocate opposed appeal with submission that as has been recorded by the trial court while rejecting first bail application, the appellants have been involved in similar cases earlier as well. It is also submitted that the role of appellants has clearly been indicated in the FIR of exhorting the said Rajesh Gupta into opening fire upon the injured. Learned Additional Government Advocate admits that appellants do not have any previous criminal history.

¶19

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, at this stage without entering into merits of the case and subject to evidence being led in trial, it appears that the only role assigned to appellants is that of exhortation. There does not appear to be any specific role assigned to appellants of having made any caste based insult or of having any role in injuring two persons named here-in-above. Without previous criminal history, the appellants are under incarceration since 04.01.2026.

¶20

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for appellants, it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed without appreciating the submission made on behalf of appellants and as such the order impugned by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated

¶21

CRLA No. 637 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

24.02.2026 is set aside.

¶24

Let appellants/applicants- Santosh and Satya Prakash involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on their 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:-

¶25

(i) The appellants/applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶26

(ii) The appellants/applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

¶27

(iii) The appellants/applicants 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.

¶28

(iv) The appellants/applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they 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.

¶29

(v) The appellants/applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their 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 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

¶30

(vi) In case, the appellants/applicants misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the appellants/applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A

¶31

CRLA No. 637 of 2026

¶32

4

¶33

of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 209 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

¶34