Ashutosh Maurya vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ...

State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And 2 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)

:

Anil Kumar Yadav, Devansh Singh Chauhan

Counsel for Respondent(s)

:

G.A.

Court No. - 12

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.

2. As per office report dated 13.04.2026, respondent No.2 has been served personally while respondent No.3 has refused to take notice. Therefore, notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 3 is sufficient but no one has put in appearance on their behalf.

3.Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

4. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with a prayer to set aside order dated 10.03.2026 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Raebareli on Bail Application No. 476/2026 arising out of Case Crime No. 318 of 2025, under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 351(3), 352, 3(5) BNS & Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Unchahar, District Raebareli rejecting bail to appellant.

5. As per contents of First Information Report, the incident is said to have taken place on 12.08.2025 at about 06.00 p.m. when the nominated persons Vinod & Vicky Maurya alongwith two unidentified persons are said to have assaulted one Umesh due to which he suffered serious injuries. Learned counsel also stated that on being confronted, the accused while fleeing the spot also indulged in firing. It is also stated that the nominated person Vinod was apprehended from the sport.

6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that he has been falsely implicated on allegations levelled against him which is evident from the fact that he is neither nominated in the First Information Report nor has any identification taken place and that he has been nominated only on the basis of alleged confessinoal statement in custody by nominated person Vinod Kumar Maurya. It is therefore submitted that except for the alleged confessional statement, there is no other direct evidence linking the appellant with the crime alleged. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the injury reports of Mahendra Kumar and Kalpana to indicate that all the injuries have been indicated as being simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object. It is submitted that there is no role assigned to the appellant of having opened fire and even otherwise, there is no firearm injury on any of the injured. It is further submitted that the nominated person Vinod has been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3213 of 2025. It is further submitted that previous criminal history of ten cases has been duly explained in paragraph - 12 of the rejoinder affidavit and the appellant is under incarceration since 17.02.2026.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate has opposed the appeal with submission that appellant has a previous criminal history of ten cases relating to the same nature of crime. It is also submitted that appellant has been identified by co-accused Vinod who was apprehended from the spot. It is further submitted that spent bullets were also recovered from the spot alongwith motorcycle.

8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, at this stage, without entering into the merits of case and subject to evidence in trial, it appears that appellant has not been nominated in the F.I.R. and has been taken into custody only on the basis of alleged confessional statement in custody of the nominated person Vinod Kumar Maurya. The injury reports of both the injured indicate injuries to be simple in nature. The main accused Vinod Kumar Maurya has already been enlarged on bail as indicated here-in-above. At this stage, apparently, except for the confessional statement of the said Vinod Kumar Maurya, there is no other direct evidence linking the appellant with the crime alleged. Previous criminal history of ten cases has been duly explained.

9. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the view that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record. The order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and order dated 10.03.2026 is set aside.

11. Let appellant/applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his 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/applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial

(ii) The appellant/applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness.

(iii) The appellant/applicant 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 any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

(iv) The appellant/applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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.

(v) The appellant/applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

(vi) In case, the appellant/applicant misuses the liberty of ball during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (now Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the appellant/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 174-A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 209 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

12. Pending applications if any too stand disposed of.

(Manish Mathur,J.)

May 7, 2026

lakshman