Rajesh Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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 11.02.2026 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Pratapgarh on Bail Application No.4617 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No.224 of 2025, under Sections 352, 351(3), 109(1), BNS, Sections 3(1)r, 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(2)V of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 25 Arms Act, Police Station Sangramgarh, District Pratapgarh rejecting bail to appellant.

¶14

As per contents of First Information Report, the incident is said to have taken place on 01.12.2025 at about 10.00 P.M. when the appellant allegedly entered into an altercation with the complainant

¶15

CRLA No. 915 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

on a dispute with regard to disposal of garbage. It is stated that in the process of altercation, the appellant is said to have used caste based insults upon complainant and opened fire upon the complainant who thereafter suffered fire arm injury on his face.

¶18

Learned counsel for appellant submits that he has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from the fact that admittedly there is a previous enmity and civil dispute pending between parties. It is submitted that although fire arm injury has been said to have been inflicted upon complainant but learned counsel has adverted to the injury report to indicate that there is only multiple blood spots seen on the side of face and no other injury.

¶19

It is submitted that the injury report of the complainant’s son Ravi Bhan also does not indicate any fire arm injury. Learned counsel has thereafter adverted to the statement of examining doctor who also does not indicate that the injuries suffered are grievous or fatal in nature. It is further submitted that examination was required for metal detection but examining doctor has also indicated only injury in terms of fire arm without actual fire arm injury. He has also adverted to the alleged recovery report to submit that recovery has been allegedly made of a fire arm 0.315 bore with which there is no allegation of inflicting any fire arm injury. It is submitted that appellant without any previous criminal history is under incarceration since 02.12.2025.

¶20

Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the appeal with submission that the nature of injuries suffered have clearly been borne out by the statement of examining doctor as well as the eye witness account of one Asha Devi who is an independent witness. It is submitted that the allegations have also been corroborated by the appellant's son. It is submitted that for applicability of provisions of Section 109(1) B.N.S.S, actual injury is not necessary whereas in the present case, hurt has been caused by the appellant. It is however admitted that appellant does not have any previous criminal history.

¶21

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, in view of submissions,

¶22

CRLA No. 915 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

at this stage, without entering into the merits of case and subject to evidence in trial, it appears that admittedly as per statements of witnesses and on the complainant himself, there is previous enmity between the parties including on civil litigation. It appears that although allegations of appellant opening fire upon complainant has been made but the examining doctor in his statement only indicates multiple blood spots seen on the left side of the face of injured as well as abrasion on the palm. The aspect as to whether multiple blood spots can be as a result of fire arm injury or an altercation and assault, has not been adverted to by the examining doctor. The son of complainant, who is the other injured does not have any fire arm injury. The statements of alleged independent witnesses have been brought on record by means of objections do not indicate them to be eye witnesses and are said to have reach the spot after hearing the gun shot.

¶25

In such circumstances, the aspect as to whether injury suffered by the complainant was as a result of fire arm or otherwise required to be examined by trial court with evidence in order to applicability of Section 109(1) B.N.S.S. It also appears from the recovery memo that the alleged fire arm recovered from appellant is of 0.315 bore and the injuries therefore suffered by complainant would also require to be matched with the alleged recovery. Appellant without previous criminal history is under incarceration since 02.12.2025 and chargesheet has already been filed.

¶26

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.

¶27

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order dated 11.02.2026 is set aside.

¶28

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

¶29

CRLA No. 915 of 2026

¶30

4

¶31

the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

(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.

¶35

(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.

¶36

(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).

¶37

(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).

¶38

CRLA No. 915 of 2026

¶39

5

¶40