HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 674 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Today, when the case called out, no one appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 to oppose the appeal. However, the name of counsel for the opposite party No.2 is printed in the cause list. 2. Heard Sri R.D. Shahi, learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record. 3. By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellants have challenged the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Barabanki in Second Bail Application No. 413 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 553 of 2024, under Sections 409, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) & 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Safdarganj, District-Barabanki. 4. 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 appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. 5. It is further submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the dispute is purely civil in nature, which relates to execution of a sale deed of a house by the appellants. Thus, opposite party No. 2 has given a criminal colour to a civil dispute by lodging the FIR. 6. It is also stated that till date no suit, for specific performance or to Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary, Amar Singh, Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary, Ripu Daman Shahi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Shyam Sunder Chandra Abhijeet Sharma And Another .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) get Rs. 50 Lakh, as alleged in the FIR, has been filed. 7. He stated that the Hon'ble Apex Court in various pronouncements has deprecated the practice of converting a civil dispute into criminal proceedings. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgments passed in the case of Deepak Gaba and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, Criminal Appeal No.2328 of 2022, decided on 02.01.2023; Prof R.K. Vijayasarathy & Anr. Vs. Sudha Seetharam & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.238 of 2019, arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.1434 of 2018, decided on 15.02.2019; Lalit Chaturvedi & others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, SLP (Crl) No.13485 of 2023, order dated 06.02.2024; Randheer Singh Vs. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626; Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of U.P., (2022) 17 SCC 611; Rikhab Birani Vs. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823; Jay Shri Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 54 and Debu Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. [SLP (Crl.) No.3620 of 2025)]. As such, the appellant, who is in jail since 17.12.2024, is also entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 8. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the contentions of the appellants' counsel. 9. 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. as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation. 10. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances 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. 11. The impugned order dated 04.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Barabanki in Second Bail Application No. 413 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 553 of 2024, under Sections 409, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha) & 3(2)(v) of CRLA No. 674 of 2025 2 SC/ST Act, P.S.-Safdarganj, District-Barabanki, is hereby set aside. 12. Let appellant-Abhijeet Sharma and Divya Srivastava be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on their furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- each and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellants will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellants will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellants 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 appellants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellants will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 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. August 25, 2025 Vinay/- CRLA No. 674 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench