HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 490 of 2026 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. List revised. 2. Heard Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the State has served a copy of compliance affidavit dated 05.05.2026 to learned counsel for the applicant. The same is filed today in Court which is taken on record. 4. Although there is no office report regarding compliance of paragraph 5 of the order dated 22.04.2026 through which a report from the C.J.M., Ghaziabad was called for regarding compliance of the previous order dated 20.01.2026 regarding service of notice on the respondent no.2. but learned counsel for the State submits that as per paragraph 2 & 3 of the said affidavit of compliance notice has been served personally on the opposite party no.2 on 25.12.2025 and then on 05.05.2026, proof of service of notice is annexed at page 4 & 5 of the said affidavit respecitvely. Despite service of notice twice, no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and neither he is present before the Court. 5. The Court thus proceeds to hear the matter. 6. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant- Nitesh Sharma, with the prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bulandshahr, arising out of Case Crime No. 374 of 2025, under Sections 103 (1), 238 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Anoop Shahar, District Bulandshahr. 7. The first information report of the present matter was lodged on 26.09.2025 Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Kuldeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Nitesh Sharma .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) by Ashish Chandra against Babloo Sharma alleging therein that he has his house in Ghaziabad where they live. His brother Siddharth Chandra was liking a silent atmosphere and thus he used to stay in hotels often. He has a mobile phone on which they used to talk. Siddharth Chandra was unwell and thus he showed his willingness to shift in a hotel. The informant asked him to consult a hospital but he stated of getting treated while living in the hotel. On 03.09.2025 he came to Ghaziabad and then he asked for shifting in a hotel on which the informant shifted him in hotel Grand Tushar in Ghaziabad. On 04.09.2025 his brother again came to the house and after staying there for sometime went back. Around 4-5 days earlier he had talked to his bua. Subsequently on 25.09.2025 Rajesh Gayatri the maternal uncle of the informant told him that an unknown dead body has been recovered within the territory of Police Station Anoop Shahar, District Bulandshahr and it appears to be that of Siddharth Chandra. After sometimes he received a call from the S.H.O. Anoop Shahar and he sent the photographs of the said body from which the informant identified it as the body of his brother Siddharth Chandra. His brother had good amount in his bank account and due to the same some person has murdered him. He used to be in touch with Babloo Sharma who was working in Swish Hotel, Ghaziabad and one or two times they had talked to each other. He suspects that Babloo Sharma has murdered his brother. A report be lodged and action be taken. 8. The postmortem examination on an unknown dead body was conduced on 24.09.2025 at 05:30 PM which was found to have received the following four injuries:- "1. Injury No 1. TWO LIGATURE MARKS PRESENT ALL AROUND THE NECK NO GAP PRESENT IN BOTH LIGATURE MARKS, FIRST LIGATURE OF SIZE 32 CM IN LENGTH AND WIDTH IS 2 CM AT RIGHT SIDE NECK. 4 CM AT CHIN AND 1.5 CM AT LEFT SIDE NECK, MARK SITUATED AT 3 CM BELOW FROM RIGHT EAR, 6 CM BELOW FROM CHIN AND 7 CM BELOW FROM LEFT EAR. 2. SECOND LIGATURE OF SIZE 32 CM IN LENGTH AND WIDTH IS 1.5 CM AT RIGHT SIDE NECK, 4 CM AT CHIN AND 1.5 CM AT LEFT SIDE NECK, MARK SITUATED AT 7 CM BELOW FROM RIGHT EAR, 6 CM BELOW FROM CHIN AND 7 CM BELOW FROM LEFT EAR, HORIZONTALY PLACED ALL AROUND THE NECK, ON EXPLORATION OF NECK ECCHYMOSIS PRESENT UNDERNEATH FRONT AND LEFT SIDE OF NECK AND HYOID BONE FOUND FRACTURED. 3. MULTIPLE LINEAR ABRASIONS SUSPECTED NAILS ABRASIONS IN AN AREA OF 11 CM X 5 CM ON LEFT SIDE NECK, 4 CM BELOW FROM LEFT MANDIBLE AND 4 CM ABOVE FROM LEFT STERNO CLAVICLE JOINT 4. ON EXPLORATION OF CHEST CAVITY 4,5 AND 6TH RIBS OF RIGHT SIDE AND 4,5,6,7 CRLA No. 490 of 2026 2 AND 8TH RIBS OF LEFT SIDE FOUND FRACTURED, RIGHT LUNG FOUND LACERATED AND ABOUT 800 ML CLOTTED AND FREE BLOOD FOUND IN THORACIC CAVITY." The cause of death was opined as asphyxia as a result of antemortem strangulation and injuries. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not named in the first information report. It is submitted that the present case is a case of circumstantial in nature and there is no eye-witness to the murder. It is submitted that the implication of the appellant has surfaced in the matter in the confessional statement of co-accused Babloo Sharma who was arrested and then a motorcycle was recovered from his possession. It is submitted that the said statement of co-accused is an inadmissible evidence. It is submitted that the charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted against the appellant, Babloo Sharma and Sanju @ Mohit on which the court concerned has taken cognizance, paragraph 6 and Annexure-SA-4 to the supplementary affidavit dated 27.04.2026 have been placed before the Court. It is submitted that a CCTV footage of Hotel Classic was recovered by the Investigating Officer in which also although it is seen that four persons are going on motorcycle but the name of the appellant is not disclosed therein and that he is not identified as one of the said persons. It is submitted that links in the chain of circumstances are conspicuously missing. It is submitted that there is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession or on the pointing out of the appellant as stated in para 17 of the affidavit. It is further submitted that co-accused Mohit @ Sanju has been granted bail by another Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.04.2026 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1895 of 2026, the copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-SA-5 to the said supplementary affidavit. The appellant has no criminal history as stated in para 16 of the affidavit and is in jail since 29.09.2025. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the co-accused Babloo Sharma who is named in the first information report was arrested and then he has named the appellant and co- accused Mohit @ Sanju as the accused who had accompanied him and they had committed the present incident. It is submitted that thus the implication of the appellant has surfaced during investigation. 11. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that the appellant is not named in the first information report. His implication has surfaced during investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused Babloo Sharma. There is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession or on the pointing out of the appellant. The present case is a case of circumstantial in nature. There is no eye-witness to the CRLA No. 490 of 2026 3 murder. Except for naming of the appellant in the confessional statement of co-accused there is no other evidence against him. The charge-sheet in the matter has been submitted against. Co-accused Mohit @ Sanju has been granted bail. 12. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the appellant may be enlarged on bail. 13. Let the appellant- Nitesh Sharma, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The appellant will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever. (ii) The applicant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever. (iii) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (iv) The appellant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner whatsoever. In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S., 2023 may be issued and if applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under section 209 B.N.S., 2023. (v) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial court may proceed against him under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023. (vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the appellant. CRLA No. 490 of 2026 4 14. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the appellant to prison. 15. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed. 16. The impugned order dated 25.11.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bulandshahr of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside. May 6, 2026 AS Rathore CRLA No. 490 of 2026 5 (Samit Gopal,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad