Samidul Alias Lukka vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ...

HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent no.1-State and Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 14A(2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 with a prayer to set aside order dated 19.11.2025 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Hardoi on Bail Application arising out of Case Crime No.70 of 2024 under Sections 364, 120-B, 34, 302, 201 I.P.C. & Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(v)a of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, P.S.Sandila, District Hardoi refusing bail to appellant. Further, a prayer has been made to enlarge the appellant on bail in the said case crime.

3. As per contents of first information report, daughter in law of the informant, Sonam is said to have left her house on 06.08.2023 at about 03:30 P.M. It is stated that she had taken away her gold and silver jewellery worth about Rs.3,00,000/- and cash worth Rs.15,000/-. It is stated that when she did not return, information was given to police on 07.08.2023 but no report was lodged at that time due to which a complaint was filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him which would be evident from fact that subsequently body of the said Sonam was recovered after two years of the incident which was in the shape of a skeleton. It is submitted that although the D.N.A. report clearly indicate the skeleton to be that of deceased Sonam but appellant has been taken into custody more than two years and one month of the incident only on the basis of alleged confessional statement of appellant's father Ayub and that of appellant himself in police custody. It is submitted that except for the alleged confessional statement, there is no other evidence linking appellant with the alleged crime. It is submitted that as per the recovery memo, a ladies shoe-ware was found along with a python near the skeleton remains. It is further submitted that even as per statements of Villagers, the main allegations have been levelled against one Masidul and not the appellant. It is submitted that the said Masidul is still at large and appellant without any previous criminal history is under incarceration sine 01.10.2025.

5. Learned counsel for respondents have refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for appellant with submission that the crime indicated is heinous in nature and the statements of the appellant as well as that of his father co-accused Ayub clearly indicate their role in elopement and subsequent strangulation of the deceased Sonam. It is also submitted that statement of co-accused Ayub clearly indicates that while Masidul strangulated Sonam, co-accused Ayub held her hands and appellant held her legs wherafter the body was concealed under bushes. It is submitted that D.N.A. profile also indicates the body to be that of Sonam. Learned Additional Government Advocate however admits that appellant does not have any previous criminal history and the main accused Masidul has not yet been caught.

6. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it appears that although as per D.N.A. profile, the body has been found to be that of deceased Sonam but the said recovery has taken place after more than two years of the incident. F.I.R. has also been lodged against unidentified persons and appellant has been taken into custody and implicated in crime primarily on the basis of confessional statement in custody of co-accused Ayub and his own custodial statement. While rejecting the Bail Application of appellant, trial court vide order dated 19.11.2025 has indicated that investigation was still ongoing which would hamper in case appellant is granted bail. At this stage, it is admitted that charge sheet has been filed and except for alleged confessional statement, there does not appear to be any material evidence linking appellant with the crime. However such an aspect will be required to be adjudicated upon by trial court with due evidence. Although crime alleged is heinous in nature but in considered opinion of this Court, evidence cannot be replaced by mere suspicion. Appellant without any previous criminal history is under incarceration since 01.10.2025.

7. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, without commenting on merits, 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. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 19.11.2025 is set aside.

8. Let appellant/applicant Samidul Alias Lukka 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 applicant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

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

(iii) The 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 to any police officer or otherwise tamper with the evidence.

(iv) 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. 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 appropriate orders in accordance with law.

(v) The 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 applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. (bow Section 84 BNSS) is issued and the 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).

9. The pending application if any too stands disposed of.

(Manish Mathur,J.)

May 6, 2026

kvg/-