Sagar Rastogi vs State Of U.P. And Another

2. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

3. Sri Nitesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is not present even in the revised list.

4. This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the appellant Sagar Rastogi, with the prayer to set-aside the impugned order dated 28.1.2026 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Moradabad, in IInd Bail Application No. 287 of 2026, Sagar Rastogi Vs. State of U.P., arising out of Case Crime No. 209 of 2025, under Sections 3(1)?, (v), 3(1)?, 3(2)v of SC/ST Act, Police Station Nagphani, District Moradabad, with a further prayer to release the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the F.I.R. in the matter was lodged under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352, 109(1) BNS on 04.11.2025 in which the appellant has been granted bail vide order dated 16.2.2026 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.986 of 2026, copy of the said order has been placed before the Court which is annexure no. 1 to the affidavit in support of bail application in appeal. The same reads as under:-

"1. Supplementary affidavit filed, today in Court, on behalf of the applicant is taken on record.

2. Despite last opportunity granted vide order dated 4.2.2026, none appears on behalf of the informant.

3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Prem Prakash Tiwari, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

4. This bail application has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant Sagar Rastogi seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.209 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 352, 109(1) B.N.S., Police Station Nagphani, District Moradabad.

5. Tersely, as per the allegation contained in the FIR accused-applicant, who is husband of the informant/victim, has caused injuries to the informant.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the accused-applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case due to matrimonial/family dispute with the informant. Applicant is languishing in jail since 4.11.2025. It is submitted that though applicant is named in the FIR but he has not caused any injury to the informant. It is further submitted that though the injured has stated in her statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. that applicant, who is her husband, has caused injury with belt, fists and tried to strangulate her neck but as per the medical report available on record most of the injures sustained to the injured are simple in nature which includes reddish blue contusion, multiple contusion etc. It is argued that applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit. It is lastly submitted that since charge-sheet has already been submitted on 11.1.2026, therefore, there is no reasonable possibility of intimidating or pressurizing the prosecution witnesses. Submission is that the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long and there is no likelihood of his fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

7. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant by contending that the innocence of the applicant cannot be adjudged at pre-trial stage, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence. It is further submitted that, in case the applicant is released on bail, he may again indulge in similar activities and misuse the liberty of bail.

8. Having considered the submissions of the parties noted above as also the fact that though applicant is named in the FIR but the informant/victim is legally wedded wife of applicant, though the injured has stated in her statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S. that applicant, who is her husband, has caused injury with belt, fists and tried to strangulate her neck but as per the medical report available on record most of the injures sustained to the injured are simple in nature, applicant has no criminal antecedents to his credit, charge-sheet has already been submitted, he is languishing in jail since 4.11.2025, keeping in view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India, considering paragraph no.53 of Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (SC) LawSuit 677, dictum of Apex Court in Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 & Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that:-

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

(ii) The 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.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the court concerned.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present in person before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement of accused personally to explain circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

(v) In case the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him strictly, in accordance with law.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail by the trial court.

10. Identity and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted."

6. It is submitted that subsequently during investigation the Investigating Officer had added sections 3(1)?, (v), 3(1)?, 3(2)v of SC/ST Act and thus the appellant is facing prosecution under the said Act also. It is submitted that dispute is between the husband and the wife inasmuch as the first informant Smt. Neha is wife of the appellant. It is submitted that in the sections in which F.I.R. has been lodged, the appellant has already been granted bail. The appellant has no criminal history as stated in para 22 of the affidavit in support of bail application in appeal. It is submitted that although the appellant had been granted bail vide order dated 16.2.2026 but he did not get released from the jail and is in jail since 6.11.2025.

7. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the appeal and prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments of the appellant as aforesaid.

8. After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that initially the appellant has been granted bail under the sections in which the F.I.R. has been lodged but during investigation the Investigating Officer has added sections 3(1)?, (v), 3(1)?, 3(2)v of SC/ST Act and thus the appellant is facing prosecution under the said Act also.

9. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case this Court is of the view that the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

10. Let the appellant- Sagar Rastogi, 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 appellant 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 appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 BNSS/82 Cr.P.C., may be issued and if appellant 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 BNS/174-A I.P.C.

(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 251 BNSS/313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the appellant 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 BNS/229-A IPC.

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the appellant.

11. 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.

12. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.

13. The impugned order dated 28.1.2026 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Moradabad is hereby set aside.

(Samit Gopal,J.)

May 6, 2026

Naresh