Allahabad High Court
Surendra Pal @ Surendra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 19 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48517
Court No. - 11
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 882 of 2025
Appellant :- Surendra Pal @ Surendra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Anoher
Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Vikram,Amar Singh,Bal Keshwar Srivastava,Izhar Husain Siddiqui,Karan Veer Singh,Masood Ali,Prateek Shukla,Rajkumar Singh,Ranjan Srivastava,Ravi Shanker Tewari,Vijay Kumar Asthana
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Priyanka Singh
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
1. Heard Shri Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and Ms. Priyanka Singh, learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2.
2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short "Act of 1989") against the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 1194 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 0055 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 3(2)(va), 3(1) ?, ? of Act of 1989, Police Station - Sushant Golf City, District - Lucknow South (Commissionerate Lucknow).
3. While pressing the instant application for bail, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a perusal of the FIR No.005, lodged by respondent no.2 on 04.02.2024 at Police Station - Sushant Golf City, District - Lucknow South (Commissionerate Lucknow) would indicate that it relates to dispute of Plot No. 0502-0-G/7/128 at Sushant Golf City, Lucknow and the same would further indicate that the allottee of this plot namely Shailendra Singh and Shashi Prabha Singh transferred the allotment to appellant/Surendra and respondent no.2/Sunita Singh as would appear from Annexure No.2 wherein the subject has been mentioned as "change of right to purchase plot/flat/house/shop no.G/7/128 at Sushant Golf City Lko".
4. In continuation, it is stated that this document i.e. Annexure No. 2 further indicates that the transferors and transferees put their signature and the FIR also indicates that the possession of the plot could not be provided by the transferors to the transferees, named above, and therefore the informant became aggrieved and demanded Rs.10,00,000/- from Prakash Singh who has already been enlarged on bail and who refused the said demand for the reason that the said amount was not provided to her.
5. It is stated that the facts, indicated in brief, indicate that opposite party no.2/informant wants to give criminal color to a civil dispute which relates to Rs.10,00,000/-.
6. It is further stated that it is not in dispute that the transferors have not been named in the FIR nor the proceedings with regard to recovery of said amount has been initiated by the opposite party no.2.
7. It is further stated that to attract the offense related to SC/ST Act of 1989 allegations have been levelled in the FIR which are to the effect that Prakash Singh hurled abuses and also made casteist remarks, which were not found correct during investigation by the Investigating Officer (in short "IO"), as would appear from CD No.16, typed copy of which has been annexed at page 43 of the paper book. In this view of the matter, no allegation has been levelled against the appellant to attract the offense under SC/ST Act of 1989 and if it is presumed that the case would proceed with the aid of Section 120-B IPC even in that eventuality there is no independent witness with the prosecution till date which is required.
8. It is also stated that co-accused namely Prakash Singh has already been enlarged on bail.
9. It is further stated that the document (Annexure No.2) i.e. letter of transfer of right to purchase the plot, of which one of the signatories is opposite party no.2/Informant and regarding the same opposite party no.2 states that the same has not been signed by her and this aspect of the case, is a subject matter of the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial court and this document is in possession of the IO.
10. It is further stated that in the aforesaid background of the case this is not a case of custodial interrogation.
11. In these circumstances, the appellant, who has no criminal history, which has not been disputed, is entitled to be released on bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
12. Ms. Priyanka Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as also Shri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned AGA opposed the prayer sought by the appellant.
13. They stated that in the FIR, indicated above, opposite party no.2/Informant has specifically stated that casteist remarks were made in public place, however, they could not dispute that in the FIR there is no mention with regard to independent witness.
14. It is to be noted that at this stage that 'public place' and 'public view' are two different expressions/connotations and has to be taken note of in view of the various pronouncements on the issue.
15. It is further stated that the investigation is under process and the charge sheet would be filed.
16. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., as well as other relevant documents including the case diary, copy of tripartite agreement.
17. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances particularly that no independent witness is available with prosecution to prove the allegations with regard to SC/ST Act of 1989 as also co-accused against whom allegation in the F.I.R. has been levelled to attract the offence under SC/ST Act of 1989 has already been released on bail and also the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Tala vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 638, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the judgment passed in the case of Shajan Sakaria vs. State of Kerala reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249, relied upon by the side opposite, and also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.
18. Order dated25.02.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lucknow in Bail Application No. 1194 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 0055 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 3(2)(va), 3(1) ?, ? of Act of 1989, Police Station - Sushant Golf City, District - Lucknow South (Commissionerate Lucknow), is hereby set aside.
19. In the event of arrest/appearance of appellant - Surendra Pal @ Surendra,before the learned Trial Court in the aforesaid case crime, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond and two solvent sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of S.H.O./Court concerned on the following conditions and subject to any other conditions that may be fixed by the Trial Court:
(i) that theappellantshall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) that theappellantshall 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 tamper with the evidence;
(iii) that theappellantshall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.
(iv) that theappellantshall appear before the trial court on each date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted; and
(v) that theappellantshall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.
Order Date :- 19.8.2025
Mohit Singh/-
