Harsh v. State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7949 of 2025 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA as well as perused the entire record.

¶2Earlier, the appellant has approached this Court in Criminal Appeal No.7852 of 2023 and co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

18.9.2023 has dismissed the same.

¶3The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant-Harsh to set aside the bail rejection order dated 07.08.2025 in the III Bail application bearing No. 3238 of 2025 passed by Learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Saharanpur arising out of Case Crime No. 73 of 2023, under Section 302 of I.P.C. r/w. Section 3(2)(V) The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.S.- Kotwali Dehat, District-Saharanpur with a further prayer to release the appellant on bail during the pendency of the trial before court below.

¶4Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The appellant has not committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. He submits that neither in the FIR nor in the statement of the informant, for the first time, name of the appellant came into light in the statement of the deceased. He further submits that PW-1 and PW-2, Pooja and Raja have been examined before the trial court and they have turned hostile. He further submits that Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Anurag Pathak, Harshit Pathak Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Harsh .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) there are 28 witnesses and only six witnesses, who are facts witnesses, have been examined before the trial court, therefore, there is no possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. He further submits that co-accused X-Juvenile has already been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.7.2025 passed in Criminal Revision No.5036 of 2023, copy of the bail order is annexed as Annexure No.12 to the affidavit. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. Appellant is languishing in jail since 6.3.2023 having no criminal history.

¶5On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.G.A. have opposed the prayer for bail.

¶6I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

¶7Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role assigned to the present appellant, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶8Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set-aside.

¶9Let the appellant-Harsh, involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

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

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. CRLA No. 7949 of 2025

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected.

(v) The appellant 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.

¶10In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. September 26, 2025 Krishna* CRLA No. 7949 of 2025 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad