Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47952 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1295 of 2025 Appellant :- Pappu Maurya @ Satyendra Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava,Sudhakar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Basant Pandey,Devansh Vikram Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Basant Pandey along with Shri Devansh Vikram Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. 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 16.04.2025, passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application (Computerized Registration No.466 of 2025), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.48 of 2016, under Sections 302, 201, 120 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station -Haiderganj, District- Ayodhya/Faizabad. 3. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was released on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.07.2016 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.5899 of 2016. 4. It is further stated that the appellant could not appear before the trial court and, therefore, non-bailable warrant was issued against her and thereafter the trial court proceeded against the sureties and taking note of the same appellant surrendered before the trial court and sent to jail on 19.03.2025 and since then he is in jail. 5. It is also stated that the appellant has never been involved in any criminal activities and he has no criminal history at all, which has not been opposed by learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.2. 6. It is further submitted that co-accused Guddu Maurya @ Sandeep Maurya and Shiv Devi have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 and 06.08.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos.1008 of 2025 and 1495 of 2025 respectively. 7. It is further submitted that the appellant would remain present personally before the trial court on each date fixed. 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. 8. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail, however, they could not dispute the aforesaid contentions of counsel for the appellant. 9. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record. 10. 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, including the fact that the appellant had already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 14.07.2017 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.5899 of 2016, co-accused- Guddu Maurya @ Sandeep Maurya and Shiv Devi have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 and 06.08.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1008 of 2025 and 1495 of 2025 respectively and he is in jail since 19.03.2025 and he would remain present personally before the trial court on each date fixed, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed. 11. Order 16.04.2025, passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ayodhya/Faizabad in Bail Application (Computerized Registration No.466 of 2025), arising out of FIR/Case Crime No.48 of 2016, under Sections 302, 201, 120 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police Station -Haiderganj, District- Ayodhya/Faizabad is hereby set aside. 12. Let the appellant- Pappu Maurya alias Satyendra Maurya be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each (one surety should be of her family member) 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 her 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. 13. 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 14. 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. 15. Taking note of the fact that FIR was lodged way back in the year, the trial court is directed to make all endeavour to conclude the trial expeditiously. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench