Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37319 Court No. - 27 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1498 of 2025 Appellant :- Ranjeet Lodhi @ Ranjeet Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Alok Kumar,Seva Kant Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the record. 2. As per the office report dated 12.06.2025, the notice has personally been served upon the informant and the copy of which has been enclosed alongwith the report submitted by the C.J.M. Lucknow but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant/ informant/ respondent no.2. 3. The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST Act') against the order dated 21.01.2025, whereby the bail of the appellant has been rejected. 4. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR dated 19.05.2023 has been lodged by the informant i.e. respondent no.2 under Section 302 and 328 IPC and by hand the provision of SC/ST Act i.e. Section 3(2)(v) has been added, alleging therein that the Malti Devi and the appellant had given poison to his father due to which he expired. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the co- accused - Malti Devi after the rejection of the bail has approached this Court by filing a Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14780 of 2023 in which the bail has been granted vide order dated 19.01.2024, the copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure No.10 to the paper book and the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the same as the allegation against the Malti Devi and the appellant is the same. It is further submitted that the only difference between the case of the Malti Devi and the appellant is that against the Malti Devi, the chargesheet was not filed under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act whereas against the appellant, the chargesheet has been filed under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. 6. Learned counsel has further submitted that neither in the FIR any allegation was made by the informant for attracting the provisions of SC/ST Act nor in the statement under Section 161 given by the informant, the copy of the statement of the informant has been enclosed as Annexure No.5 to the paper book. 7. It is further submitted that the provision of SC/ST Act has been mentioned in the typed FIR by hand without there being any allegation by the informant against the appellant. 8. It is further submitted that the informant was not the eye witness, the allegation was made only on the basis of the suspicion of illicit relationship between the appellant and the co-accused - Malti Devi i.e. the wife of the informant. 9. It is further submitted that the nature of aluminum phosphate is such that it is not possible to administer in a drink without being noticed by the person for whom it is to be administered and in case it is administered forcibly then there has to be some mark of struggle or injury on the body of the deceased which was not present in the present case. 10. The appellant is languishing in jail since 12.08.2023. It is further submitted that the appellant has no criminal history. 11. It is further submitted that the appellant is also entitled for bail as it has been granted to co-accused - Malti Devi by this Court. 12. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal but unable to dispute the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant. 13. On due consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and going through the record of the case and the fact that the appellant is languishing in jail since 12.08.2023, the case is of circumstantial evidence, appellant has no criminal history and there appears to be prima facie no material at this stage to implicate the appellant, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, it is found to be a fit case for allowing the appeal by granting the bail to the appellant. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order dated 21.01.2025 is hereby set aside. 15. Let the appellant Ranjeet Lodhi @ Ranjeet Kumar be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions: (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) 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. (iv) The appellant 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. (v) The appellant 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. (vi) In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the appellant 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. Order Date :- 2.7.2025 Mohd. Sharif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD SHARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench