Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47460 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1122 of 2025 Appellant :- Mohd. Shahid @ Bablu Kujad Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Vyomesh Chandra Shukla,Anand Kumar Dwivedi,Ashutosh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Case called out. 2. Considering the Office Report dated 06.05.2025 as also Annexure No. CA-1 of Counter Affidavit filed by the State with a proof of service of notice upon respondent no. 2, this Court finds that service of notice upon the respondent no. 2 is sufficient. However, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 2 to oppose the present appeal. In this view of the matter, this Court proceeded to hear the instant appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. 4. 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 29.03.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Bail Application No. 557 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 0006 of 2020, under Section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "I.P.C.") and Section 3(2)(v) of Act of 1989, P.S. Kotwali Akbarpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar. 5. Pressing the present appeal and impeaching the order, under appeal, it is stated that the appellant has been falsely implicated the appellant by lodging an FIR on 03.01.2020 at about 10:15 hours. 6. Further submission is that according to the FIR in connection with which appellant is in jail i.e. FIR No. 0006, the father of the informant and accused were going to attend New Year's party on 31.12.2019 as according to the informant, the deceased left his house by saying that he would attend the New Year's party with the appellant and when the deceased did not reach at home in reasonable time on 01.01.2020, he was searched by the informant and others and ultimately his body was found on 03.01.2020 at about 09 am at Railway Bridge, situated at River Tamsa at Shehzadpur. This FIR also indicates that when his brother asked about his father i.e. the deceased the appellant, in turn scolded as also made casteist remarks. 7. It is stated that in the light of the facts indicated in the FIR the same was lodged under Sections 302, 323, 504 and Section 3(2)(v) of Act of 1989. 8. It is also stated that the Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation including taking note of the opinion of the doctor concerned who conducted the post-mortem, filed the final report. It is for the reason that cause of death could not be ascertained by the doctor concerned and viscera was sent to Forensic Laboratory. 9. It is further submitted that it appears in the light of the facts of the case the concerned Circle Officer ('CO') directed to re- investigate the matter and thereafter, another Investigating Officer investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet 15.05.2020, under Section 323, 504 IPC and Sections 3(1)da, 3(1)dha of Act of 1989. Again, the CO directed for investigation and after completion of this investigation, a report dated 15.05.2024 was submitted, which supports the charge sheet preferred by the second investigating officer dated 15-05-2020. However, CO again directed for investigation and thereafter the final report dated 15-05-2024 was filed, which also supports the charge sheet dated A100/2020 dated 15.05.2020. 10. The charge-sheet dated 15.05.2020 was submitted before the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar (in short "trial Court"). Thereafter, the trial Court passed the order dated 29.01.2025, whereby rejected the said final report/charge sheet and thereafter, the trial court took suo motu cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C., based upon the statement of informant and his brother, and summoned the present appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Act of 1989. 11. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid background of the case, the appellant is in jail since 10.03.2025 and is having no criminal history. 12. Further submission is that if the case is taken on its face value, which includes viscera report wherein ethyl alcohol has been indicated, even then it is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no witness of last seen available with the prosecution. Therefore, it is a case of weak evidence and in the facts of the case, the chances of the conviction of the appellant is extremely bleak. 13. Thus, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. As such, appellant is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 14. 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. 15. 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 as well as charge-sheet. 16. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances particularly that there is no witness of last seen 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. 17. The impugned order dated 29.03.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Ambedkar Nagar in Bail Application No. 557 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 0006 of 2020, under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of Act of 1989, P.S. Kotwali Akbarpur, District - Ambedkar Nagar is set aside. 18. Let appellant Mohd. Shahid @ Bablu Kujad, 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. 19. 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 20. 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 :- 13.8.2025 Mohit Singh/- Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench