HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 864 of 2025 Court No. - 28 HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. (Cr.Misc. Application No.02 of 2025) Notice served to the private opposite party but non-appearance therefrom, therefore this court proceeds to hear the counsel for the applicant/appellant on the merits of the application. Heard, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record available to this application. This First Application for Bail has been preferred under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the Learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Unnao, whereby the bail application of the applicant was rejected in Case Crime No. 1063 of 2013, Under Sections 302, 364, 201, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Purwa, District-Unnao. Learned counsel for the applicant, Vimlesh Srivastava, submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the applicant is not named in the initial Missing Person Report or the subsequent FIR. His name was implicated only through the confessional statement of co-accused Shashi Prakash recorded during the investigation. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the co-accused, namely Geeta Devi Srivastava, Mukesh Kumar, Shashi Prakash, and Gyan Prakash, have already been enlarged on bail by this Hon'ble Court vide orders dated 04.04.2014, 16.04.2014, and 24.07.2014 in their respective Criminal Misc. Bail Applications. Furthermore, the bail order for co-accused Geeta Devi Srivastava specifically notes that the confessional statement has no evidentiary value. Given that the co-accused, including those who pointed out the body recovery, have been granted Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Srees Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Vimlesh Srivastava .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Another .....Respondent(s) bail, the present applicant, whose involvement is based on weak and suspect evidence, is entitled to be released on the principle of parity. The applicant is innocent, has no criminal history except the present case, and has been in jail since 12.11.2024. The applicant undertakes to appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and will not misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, submitting that the applicant committed a serious offence involving murder (Section 302 I.P.C.) and violation of the SC/ST Act, and that the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) rightly dismissed the bail application vide order dated 21.01.2025 Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available on record, and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A., this Court notes that the co-accused, namely Smt. Geeta Devi Srivastava, Mukesh, Shashi Prakash, and Gyan Prakash, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. The Court also notes the submission of the applicant that he was not named in the FIR (Missing Report/First FIR under Sec. 364 IPC), and his implication arose only from the confessional statement of co-accused Shashi Prakash. Furthermore, the Court is mindful that the co-accused's bail orders noted that the confessional statement has no evidentiary value against the co-accused. Without expressing any final opinion on the merits of the case, and considering the applicant's undertaking and the principle of parity with the co-accused who have already been granted bail, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the court below rejecting the bail application is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.01.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Unnao, arising out of Case Crime No. 1063 of 2013 (under Sections 302, 364, 201, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act), is hereby set aside. Let the applicant, Vimlesh Srivastava, be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 1063 of 2013 under Sections 302, 364, 201, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C./S.T. Act, upon his furnishing a personal bond and two local and reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: (1) 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 CRLA No. 864 of 2025 2 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 13, 2025 Haseen U. CRLA No. 864 of 2025 3 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench