HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1778 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by Sri Akhilesh Singh Chauhan, Advocate on behalf on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 in the Court today is taken on record. 2. Heard counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and learned counsel for the private opposite party No. 2 as well as perused the record. 3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Unnao in Bail Application No. 1184 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 414 of 2024, under Section- 105 B.N.S. and Section- 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Ajgain, District- Unnao. 4. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the if the case of prosecution in toto is taken to be correct then in that eventuality the case of the appellant would fall under Section 304 Part II IPC aking to Section 105 Part II B.N.S. It is for the reason that a perusal of the documents on record would show that on account of dispute between the deceased, who was in drunken state, and appellant, seller, arose on the petty issue related to purchasing fish and thereafter the deceased hurled abuses and on spur of moment, the appellant hit the deceased with danda which unfortunately landed just below the ear of deceased. 5. It is further stated that the informant/opposite party No. 2 is not the eye- Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Gulam Mustafa Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Akhilesh Singh Chauhan Sanju Kashyap @ Sanjay .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And And Another .....Respondent(s) witness of the incident and other witnesses of prosecution have also in fact not seen the incident. However, the evidence of these witnesses would be subject to the statements, which would be given before the trial court. 6. It is further stated that recovery of 'danda' on pointing out of the appellant is a fake recovery, as there is no public independent witness to it. 7. It is further submitted that appellant, having no criminal history, is languishing in jail since 25.12.2024. 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. 8. Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 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 A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 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, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, F.I.R., impugned order, as also the fact that informant is not the eye witness of the incident and also that the appellant is in jail since 25.12.2024 and also the fact that the incident occurred in heat of passion on spur of moment and chances of conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 105 B.N.S. and also that trial would not be concluded in the near future, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed. 11. Order dated 09.05.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Unnao in Bail Application No. 1184 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 414 of 2024, under Section- 105 B.N.S. and Section- 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Ajgain, District- Unnao is hereby set aside. 12. Let the appellant- Sanju Kashyap @ Sanjay 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 :- CRLA No. 1778 of 2025 2 (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. 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. September 10, 2025 Arun/- CRLA No. 1778 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench