HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1050 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard Shri Sunendra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Vimlesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. 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 18.03.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 86 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 70 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 352, 351(2) Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.") and Sections 3(1)r, 3(1)s, 3(2)5, 3(2)5a S.C/S.T Act, P.S. Paliya, District - Lakhimpur Kheri. 3. Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, dated 18.03.2025, learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant who is the owner of the Tractor and who was not driving the tractor on 26.02.2025, i.e on the date of accident/ alleged crime, has been implicated with oblique motive by concocting the story by the respondent so as to attract offence under Section 103(1) B.N.S akin to Section 304 I.P.C, as also other sections viz 191(2), 352, 351(2) Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.") and Sections 3(1)r, 3(1)s, 3(2)5, 3(2)5a S.C/S.T Act, as infact, it is a case of an accident, committed by the driver of the vehicle namely Aslam and the cause of the accident could be deduced from the site plan annexed at page-6 of the supplementary affidavit (S.A.-1), filed today, which is taken on record. 4. In continuation, it is stated that tractor was on right side and the deceased was on the wrong side and just prior to the place of accident, there is a turn which also shows that in the instant case, Section 106(2) B.N.S, akin to Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Aman Kumar Shrivastav, Dheeraj Srivastava, Sunendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Sunendra Kumar, Ved Prakash, Vimlesh Kumar Kaif .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) Section304(A) would be attracted. 5. It is further stated that the cause of death is crush injury which also indicates that it is a case of accident and his further submission is that in view of the aforesaid facts, the ultimate conviction would be of the driver concerned and not of the owner of the tractor. 6. Thus, indulgence of this Court is required and as such, the appellant, who is in jail since 26.02.2025, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 7. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant. However, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel. 8. 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., including the site plan annexed as S.A-1. 9. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the cause of death i.e. crush injury as also the site plan annexed as S.A-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed today and 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 18.03.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 86 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 70 of 2025, under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 352, 351(2) Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.") and Sections 3(1)r, 3(1)s, 3(2)5, 3(2)5a S.C/S.T Act, P.S. Paliya, District - Lakhimpur Kheri is set aside. 11. Let appellant Kaif, 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 CRLA No. 1050 of 2025 2 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./Section 351 BNSS. 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. September 18, 2025 DiVYa CRLA No. 1050 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench