Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47550 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1226 of 2025 Appellant :- Mukesh Agrahari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Case called out. The opposite party no.2/complainant chose not to appear before this Court to oppose the instant appeal despite service of notice, as appears from Annexure No.CA-1 to the counter affidavit of State and the order of this Court dated 10.07.2025. Learned A.G.A. is present in the Court. In these circumstances, this Court proceeded to hear the instant appeal, which relates to enlargement of appellant on bail, on merits. 2. Heard counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act') against the impugned order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sultanpur in Bail Application No.769 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.186 of 2024, under Sections- 110, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 103, 324(4) of B.N.S. and Sections- 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(v-a), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Amethi, District- Amethi. 4. It is stated that according to the case of prosecution, in nutshell, as indicated in the FIR, the appellant assaulted the informant, namely, Suraj Kannaujia and his friend Roshan Kashyap as also Manju Devi (deceased/mother of informant) with kicks and fists as also with steel chain. 5. The case of the prosecution further indicates that the appellant assaulted the deceased with steel rod on account of which she sustained head injury and succumbed to the said injury. 6. It is further stated that the prosecution case further indicates that the appellant and the deceased were having relationship and if this fact is taken to its face value, then it could be a case of honour killing and the appellant has been falsely implicated. However, it is a case of road accident. 7. It is further stated that the deceased died in a road accident and this fact can be deduced from the Panchayatnama as also the statement of the injured witness/informant, namely, Suraj Kannaujia recorded before the trial court, who was declared hostile by the trial court and, therefore, opportunity to Government Counsel was given to cross-examine this witness and even thereafter nothing could not be elicited to support the case of the prosecution. 8. It is also stated that another alleged eye-witness, namely, Roshan Kashyap has also been declared hostile as he failed to support the story of the prosecution and this witness was also cross-examined by the Government Counsel, however, nothing could be elicited in support of the case of the prosecution. 9. It is further stated that the appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 29.09.2024. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail. 10. Learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, he could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant. 11. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record. 12. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, and also that witnesses, named above, have been declared hostile and that the appellant, having no criminal history, is in jail since 29.09.2024 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed. 13. Order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sultanpur in Bail Application No.769 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.186 of 2024, under Sections- 110, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 103, 324(4) of B.N.S. and Sections- 3(1)(R) (S), 3(2)(v-a), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Amethi, District- Amethi is hereby set aside. 14. Let the appellant- Mukesh Agrahari be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (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 shall 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. 15. 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 16. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) 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(s) made in this order. Order Date :- 13.8.2025 Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench