HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 396 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. From the Office report dated 16.05.2025 and Annexure No. CA-1 to the counter affidavit of the State dated 20.08.2025, it is apparent that service of notice upon private opposite party No. 2 is sufficient. However, today when the case called out, no one appeared on behalf of private opposite party No. 2 to oppose the present appeal. 2. In the aforesaid background of the case, the Court proceeded to hear the appeal on merits. 3. Heard Sri Parth Anand alongwith Sri Yes Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 4. By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in second Bail Application No. 08 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 525 of 2024 under Sections 137(2), 103(1), 238A, BNS 2023 and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.- Dhaurahra, District-Lakhimpur Kheri. 5. It is stated that if the case of prosecution is taken on its face value, then in that eventuality, it can be inferred that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. 6. Further stated that it is a case of blind murder as would appear from the FIR itself which was lodged as FIR No. 0525 of 2024, against unknown person and taking note of allegations levelled therein the same was lodged in terms of Section 137(2) BNS, 2023 (missing report). 7. It is further stated that the body of the deceased was recovered on 09.11.2024 from an open place i.e. agricultural field of sugarcane which is owned by one Bacchalal Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Suresh Chandra Srivastava, Devansh Vikram Singh, Nadeem Murtaza, Parth Anand, Savita Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Shilpi .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko And Another .....Respondent(s) Verma. However, this recovery is neither on the pointing out of the appellant nor on the pointing out of the co-accused. 8. It is also stated that the alleged incident is of 06.11.2024, the FIR was lodged on 07.11.2024 and the body of the deceased was recovered from an open place i.e. agricultural field of sugarcane which is owned by one Bacchalal Verma on 09.11.2024 and thereafter, the prosecution planted two witnesses i.e. Smt. Mukhbari and Smt. Zainab Khatoon as a witness of last seen and their statement(s) were recorded by the Investigating Officer on 20.11.2024, thus, there is delay in recording the statements of these witnesses on which basis the appellant and co-accused have been implicated and this delay is fatal to the story of the prosecution which is no doubt is subject to the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court. 9. Further submission is that in fact the implication of the appellant as also co-accused is based upon the the witnesses aforesaid, the statement(s) of whom were recorded after delay of 11 days of recovery of body of the deceased, and there is no direct evidence against the appellant to connect her with the crime in issue. The witnesses aforesaid are not witnesses of last seen. Despite delay in recording the statement(s) these witnesses have not stated any reason/fact based upon which it can be inferred that the appellant and co-accused were with the deceased. 10. Further stated that considering the period of incarceration benefit of Section 480 BNSS, akin to Section 437 CrPC (now repealed), is liable to be extended in favour of present appellant. 11. Thus, taking note of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 12. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel. 13. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant- applicant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., post-mortem report, inquest report as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation. 14. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the fact related to delay in recording the statement(s) of above named witnesses and also their statement(s) as 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. 15. The impugned order dated 20.01.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in second Bail Application No. 08 of 2025, arising out of Case CRLA No. 396 of 2025 2 Crime No. 525 of 2024 under Sections 137(2), 103(1), 238A, BNS 2023 and Section 3(2)5 of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Dhaurahra, District-Lakhimpur Kheri, is hereby set aside. 16. Let appellant-Shilpi be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her 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. 17. 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. September 22, 2025 Vinay/- CRLA No. 396 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench