Sujeet Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Heard Mr. Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for appellant whose power filed today alongwith rejoinder affidavit is taken on record, learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite party No.1 and Mr. Anurag Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶12

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 25.02.2026 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow on Bail Application No. 1320 of 2026 arising out of Case Crime No. 226 of 2025, under Sections 61(2), 140(1), 103(1), 238, 351(3), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 3(5) BNS & Section 3(2)5 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nigoha, District Lucknow rejecting bail to appellant.

¶13

As per contents of First Information Report, a missing report was lodged with regard to one Shiv Prakash alias Kabir who is stated to have gone missing. Suspicion has been cast upon the appellant and two co-accused since they have civil litigation pending between them.

¶14

Learned counsel for appellant submits that he has been falsely implicated on allegations levelled against him which could be evident from the fact that FIR has been lodged only on suspicion and hearsay

¶15

CRLA No. 826 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

and the corpse which was subsequently recovered was in the nature of a totally charred body and was identified only on the basis of an injury mark. It is therefore submitted that even corpse delicti has not been properly identified. It is submitted that previous criminal history of three cases has been duly explained while appellant is under incarceration since 08.12.2025.

¶18

Learned counsel for respondents have opposed the appeal but admit that although charge-sheet has been filed but the corpse was totally a totally charred body and has been identified on the basis of an injury mark. It is also admitted that previous criminal history of three cases is explained.

¶19

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 F.I.R. has been lodged only on suspicion and hearsay and the entire case, at present, appears to be on circumstantial evidence which would require to be corroborated during trial by evidence. The aspect of identification of corpse delicti is also required to be undertaken. The appellant with previous criminal history three cases has been explained is under incarceration since 08.12.2025.

¶20

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.

¶21

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order dated 25.02.2026 is set aside.

¶22

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:-

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

CRLA No. 826 of 2026

¶26

3

¶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 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

¶30

(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).

¶31

Pending applications if any too stand disposed of.

¶32

April 22, 2026 lakshman

¶33

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶34

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

Sujeet Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujeet Kumar Srivastava 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

Abhinay @ Abhinav Chauhan @ Gulbadan Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and Another

Inayat vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ajeet Singh @ Kuldeep Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sandeep Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

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

Ram Khelawan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 5 Others