Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:49221 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 278 of 2025 Appellant :- Arun Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajendra Prasad Mishra,Aditya Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ram Prakash Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Heard Shri Rajendra Prasad Mishra and Shri Aditya Mishra, learned counsels for the appellant, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short "Act of 1989") against the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gonda in Cri. Misc. Bail Application No. 2153(B)/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 417 of 2024, under Section 103(1) of BNS and Sections 3(2)(v) of Act of 1989, P.S. Tarabganj, District - Gonda. 3. Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, dated 24.10.2024, it is stated that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no direct link with the prosecution to connect the appellant with the crime indicated in the FIR dated 02.09.2024, in which there is no mention regarding eyewitness and a perusal of the same also indicates that informant/respondent no.2 namely Prahlad Bharti S/o Ram Dhiraj Bharti is neither an eyewitness nor the witness of last name. 4. It is further stated that a perusal of Annexure No. 4, typed copy of inquest report, would indicate that one Ramesh Kumar Bharti, son of Prahlad Bharti, witness of inquest, has also not indicated the name of the appellant at the time of preparation of the inquest report, according to which the body of the deceased was brought to the hospital by an ambulance and with regard to this the information was provided by Sweeper/Chowkidar Satya Prakash Shukla S/o Surendra Kumar Shukla. 5. It is further stated that statement(s) of Kali Charan and Suraj Bharti, brother of the informant, who indicated name of the appellant are liable to be ignored on the grounds of delay as this delay is about 17 days which is fatal to the story of the prosecution. Reliance has been placed on the judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shahid Khan v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 2016 SC 1178. 6. Thus, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. As such, appellant, who is in jail since 03.09.2024 and having criminal history of five cases which have been explained in Para 10 to the rejoinder affidavit, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 7. Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondent and Shri Ram Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel. 8. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., post-mortem report as well as statement of the witnesses. 9. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the delay in recording the statement of alleged eye- witness as also the period of incarceration also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed. 10. Order dated 24.10.2024 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gonda in Cri. Misc. Bail Application No. 2153(B)/2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 417 of 2024, under Section 103(1) of BNS and Sections 3(2)(v) of Act of 1989, P.S. Tarabganj, District - Gonda, is set aside. 11. Let appellant Arun Kumar Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (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. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 12. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law 13. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Mohit Singh/- Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench