HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1339 of 2025 Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Counter affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the complainant is taken on record. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Pintoo Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and the learned AGA for the State as well as perused the record. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 07.04.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 871 of 2025, in Case Crime No.0220 of 2024, under Sections 304, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section 34 of National Medical Commission Act, 2019, Police Station Arwal, District Hardoi, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the appellant. He further submits that he has enmity with one Guddu whose name has been dropped during the course of investigation. He further submits that as per autopsy report the death of the deceased was not ascertained and, as such, the viscera was preserved and was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis and as per report of FSL, oregano phosphorus poison was found in the viscera of the deceased. He further submits that the appellant is languishing in jail since 15.01.2025 having no criminal history to his credit. He next submits that in case the appellant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and he shall fully cooperate with the trial. He has further submitted that there Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Alok Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Anil Kumar Rajvanshi, Pintoo Sunil @ Sandeep Katiyar .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) is no possibility of the appellant to intimidate or pressurize the witnesses or any other persons acquainted with the facts of the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer by submitting that the appellant was involved in committing the crime and, as such, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail and the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, he has been unable to dispute the other factual submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of material available on record, including the allegations made in the FIR, it transpires that no incriminating article is recovered from the possession of the appellant; in the autopsy report, the death of the deceased was not ascertained and the viscera was preserved and as per the result of viscera, the oregano phosphorus poison was found from the body of the deceased; the applicant is languishing in jail since 15.01.2025 having no criminal history to his credit and he has undertaken that in case he is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate with the trial. Without expressing any opinion on merit, this Court is of the view that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record, thus, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 07.04.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Hardoi in Bail Application No. 871 of 2025, in Case Crime No.0220 of 2024, under Sections 304, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section 34 of National Medical Commission Act, 2019, Police Station Arwal, District Hardoi, is hereby set aside. Let the appellant-Sunil @ Sandeep Katiyar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties relating to his family members 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. CRLA No. 1339 of 2025 2 (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.PC. 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 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. October 17, 2025 kkv/ CRLA No. 1339 of 2025 3 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench