Abhijeet Verma @ Ambuj vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

"1. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the injured survived for 15 days but the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of alleged injured (deceased) namely, Ram Khilawan and no such fact has been mentioned in the counter affidavit.

¶12

2. The concerned Investigating Officer shall file his personal affidavit disclosing the entire facts within a period of one week. Learned A.G.A. is directed to bring on record the injury report of the injured (deceased) by the next date.

¶13

3. Put up this case on 17.06.2026 in the list of fresh cases."

¶14

Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that although the investigating officer could not file his personal affidavit in pursuance to order dated 09/06/2026, but he has submitted a report to the effect that the incident occurred on 07/12/2025 at about 5:30 PM in which injured, deceased Ram Khelawan, received serious injury on his head and he was

¶15

CRLA No. 729 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

referred to District Hospital Pratapgarh for treatment from where he was referred to S.R.M. Hospital Prayagraj, keeping in view his serious condition. His statement was undertaken at S.R.M. Hospital, Prayagraj and he died during treatment.The informant has stated in his statement that his brother, injured Ram Khelawan is still not regained his consciousness and similar statement was given by Panch Witness Ram Narayan, son of Ram Adhar to the effect that injured was not in a position to speak nor to arise from the bed.Doctor Yatindra Shukla, who treated the injured, has also stated that the injured was kept on ventilator. He was brought to the hospital in a estate of coma. The informant has stated that due to said reason, the statement of injured, deceased Ram Khilawan, could not be recorded. Charge sheet was filed on 24/02/2026 and after much efforts, supplementary affidavit was obtained from the doctor, which is mentioned in the supplementary parcha of the case diary.

¶18

As per the report of C.J.M. Pratapgarh dated 17/03/2026, notice to respondent number 2 to 4, complainant have been served personally, but none has appeared on their behalf to file objection.

¶19

Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.

¶20

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with a prayer to set aside order dated 27.02.2026 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh on Bail Application No. 229/2026 arising out of Case Crime No.348 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 109(1), 103(1) BNS & 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 Kotwali Dehat, District Pratapgarh rejecting bail to appellant.

¶21

CRLA No. 729 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

As per contents of First Information Report, the incident is said to have taken place on 07.12.2025 at 05.30 p.m. when the brother of complainant Ram Khelawan objected to the activities of appellant and co-accused in having liquor in a particular place which was used by the ladies of village for their private purpose. It is alleged that on their activities being objected to, the appellant and co-accused are said to have assaulted the said Ram Khelawan who thereafter suffered grievous injuries.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. Although his name was in the FIR, yet the complicity of another named accused, Ankesh Patel alias Gulei, could not be substantiated during investigation and his name was dropped in the charge sheet. In the FIR the allegation of causing serious injuries to the deceased has been attributed to the appellant and co-accused Ankesh Patel alias Gulei. However, the informant has implicated Jai Singh Patel, Ajay Kumar Verma and some unknown person also as assailants in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. along with two named accused. Similarly, the eye witness Ram Ashray Saroj has also implicated coaccused persons along with some unknown person as assailants in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. whereas the chargesheet was filed against three accused persons, namely, the appellant and co-accused Ajay Kumar Verma and Jai Singh Patel. Injured Ram Ashray Saroj and Manjeet Singh have also implicated four persons as assailants in their statements and they have stated that they have also assaulted them when came to save the deceased Ram Khilawan.The injured Ram Ashray Saroj has stated that he also received injury in the incident on his wrist of right hand, shoulder and head whereas only one injury that has been detected on the person of Ram Ashray Saroj, which is in the form of contused swelling on right hand and in the X-ray report, no abnormality was detected. Injured injury report of Manjeet Singh, one injury in the nature of abrasion was found on his head, which was 2-3 days old.

¶25

CRLA No. 729 of 2026

¶26

4

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that general allegations have been levelled against the persons named in the FIR as well as those introduced subsequently. There no explanation was found on record as to incident is said to have occurred on 7/2/2025. The medical report has been furnished only two days thereafter, on 9/2/2025, thereby casting serious doubt about the incident itself. It is stated in the FIR and the statement of the witnesses that the co-accused persons were inebriated estate .

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that even otherwise allegations labelled indicate that the incident occurred suddenly without any premeditation. It is also submitted that the appellant is not having any prior criminal history and he is held in jail custody since 9/12/2025 and investigation and the charge sheet has been filed in the case.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that a copy of the supplementary medical report of the deceased has also placed on record. In the post-mortem report of the deceased, two ante-mortem injuries were found; (1) stitched wound 26 cm long containing 26 stitches present at the left side skull, (2) stitched wound 10 cm long containing 10 stitches present on the right side of abdomen. However, there is no specific version of any witnesses regarding authorship of those injuries and general role have been assigned to all the accused persons, including named accused, Ankesh Patel alias Gullai, whose complicity has not been found during investigation.

¶30

He has also stated that the co-accused persons namely, Ajay Kumar Verma and Jai Singh Patel, whose role were similar in the incident have been released on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide orders dated 15/5/2026 and 27/5/2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 904 of

¶31

CRLA No. 729 of 2026

¶32

5

¶33

2026 and Criminal Appeal No. 1259 of 2026 respectively, against the rejection of bail by the learned trial court.

¶34

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the appeal with the submission that appellant's name has been specifically indicated by both the eyewitnesses being the complainant as well as the said Manjeet Singh who have specifically indicated his role in the assault. It is submitted that due to injuries suffered the said Ram Khelawan subsequently passed away. His post-mortem report clearly indicates death as a result of shock due to ante-mortem head injury.

¶35

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 from the allegations that a sudden quarrel had broken out between the parties leading to assault and subsequent death of the said Ram Khelawan. The aspect as to whether any medical attention was provided to the deceased immediately after the incident or two days thereafter would require to be examined by the trial court by evidence. The allegations also do not indicate any caste-based aspect particularly that the assault was on account of the caste-based and this aspect would also require consideration. The appellant is 25 years of age and without previous criminal history is under incarceration since 23.12.2025.

¶36

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.

¶37

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order dated 27.02.2026 is set aside.

¶38

CRLA No. 729 of 2026

¶39

6

¶40

Let appellant/applicant- Abhijeet Verma @ Ambuj 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:-

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

(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.

¶44

(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.

¶45

(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).

¶46

(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.

¶47

CRLA No. 729 of 2026

¶48

7

¶49

(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).

¶50

Pending applications if any too stand disposed of.

¶51

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶52

June 17, 2026 dk/

¶53

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

Abhijeet Verma @ Ambuj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

Abhijeet Verma @ Ambuj v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Rambabu Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Manju Srivastava @ Manjulata Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Sujeet @ Sujeet Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Saleem Qurashi @ Pappu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home )Lko.

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

Ranjeet Kumar Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another