Prem Shankar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

1A. Despite revision of list the name of Mr. Bare Lal Bhartiya being indicated as learned counsel for respondent in the cause list, he has not put in appearance.

¶13

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 28.11.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow in Bail Application No.8901 of 2025, related to S.T. No.2694 of 2022 arising out of Crime No.493 of 2022, under Sections 306 & 201 of I.P.C. & Section 3(2)V of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Mohanlalganj, District Lucknow rejecting bail to appellant.

¶14

As per contents of First Information Report, incident is said to have taken place on 11.10.2022 at about 08.00 A.M. when allegedly one Monu Yadav informed the complainant that her son was lying in an inebriated condition in the house of appellant. It is alleged that when the complainant went to house of appellant, and brought her son back, it was found that there was rope inclination on the neck.

¶15

CRLA No. 697 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

Learned counsel for appellant submits that he has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that none of the alleged eye witnesses have supported the prosecution story with the said Monu Yadav who was examined as P.W.2 being declared hostile. P.W. 3 Pancham has also been examined during the course of trial and did not support the prosecution version and indicated that he was not an eye witness. Learned counsel has also adverted to the statement of Bhagauti Prasad examined as P.W.4 and was also declared hostile. It is submitted that the postmortem report indicates death having been caused due to asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging but there is no eye witness account with regard to any role of appellant for the said purpose or that the body was ever recovered at his house. It is submitted that appellant does not have any previous criminal history is under incarceration since 20.10.2022 and witnesses of fact have already been examined. It is therefore submitted that there is no occasion for appellant to interfere in the investigation process or intimidate the witnesses.

¶18

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the appeal with submission that the postmortem report clearly corroborates the allegation levelled in the FIR but admits that the alleged eye witnesses have been declared hostile. He has not been provided any further instructions in this matter.

¶19

Upon consideration submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, in view of submissions, at this stage, without entering into the merits of case and subject to evidence in trial, it appears that although the allegation of death having been caused due to strangulation/ hanging has been borne by postmortem report but the aspect of body being recovered from the house of appellant and his role in the death has been denied by the prosecution witnesses as indicated here-in-above who have been declared hostile. The appellant does not have any previous criminal history is under incarceration since 20.10.2022 and examination of witnesses of fact have already been concluded.

¶20

CRLA No. 697 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

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.

¶23

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order dated 28.11.2025 is set aside.

¶24

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:-

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(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.

¶28

(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.

¶29

(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

¶30

CRLA No. 697 of 2026

¶31

4

¶32

of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

¶33

(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).

¶34

Pending applications if any too stand disposed of .

¶35

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶36

May 8, 2026

¶37

Subodh/-

¶38

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

Prem Shankar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prem Shankar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Aftab Ahmad Ansari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Services, Lko. and Another

Pannelal (PNO-122380152) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Satya Prakash Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. Technical Education Lko. and 3 Others

Sareela Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar Lko. and 6 Others

Manohar Lal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Shyam Narayan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and Another