Allahabad High Court
Jahid Ali vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 17 October, 2025
Author: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:65407
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2588 of 2025
Jahid Ali
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Aman Kumar Shrivastav
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A., Ravindra Pandey
Court No. - 28
HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
(I.A. No.01 of 2025)
Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This Criminal Appeal, numbered 2588 of 2025 (C.M. Application No. 1 of 2025), has been preferred under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the judgment and order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri, whereby the bail application of the appellant in Case Crime/FIR No. 186 of 2025, Under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station-Nighasan, District-Lakhimpur Kheri, was rejected.
The Applicant/Appellant, Jahid Ali, has filed a criminal appeal against the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri, rejecting his bail application. He has been in jail since 05.07.2025 in connection with Case Crime No. 186 of 2025 under Sections BNS 103(1) and SC/ST Act 3(2)(V). The genesis of the controversy is the alleged murder of the victim, a minor of 10-11 years. The motive alleged by the prosecution is long-standing land enmity.
The applicant asserts that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case, arguing that the whole incident is based on a concocted story and that no eye-witness has been mentioned in the FIR. His defence specifically highlights that the statements of villagers only suggest the applicant and co-accused "were seen nearby the field informant after the incident", which the defence argues does not directly prove the commission of the crime. The defence also challenges the applicability of the SC/ST Act sections, arguing that the death was a self-willed act committed by unknown persons and that the motive of land enmity has been wrongly invoked. The applicant further contends that there is no other witness against him and emphasizes that the case rests purely on circumstantial evidence. The applicant further claims to be an old aged person about 80 years (a claim contested by the opposite party) and undertakes not to misuse the liberty of bail or tamper with any evidence/witnesses, deserving to be enlarged on bail.
For the aforesaid reasons, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the instant criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri in Bail Application No. 285/2025; Jahid Ali Vs. State of U.P. and another, arising out of Case Crime No. 186 of 2025, under Section BNSS 103(1) and Section SC/ST Act 3(2)(5), Police Station Nighasan, District Lakhimpur Kheri deserves to be set aside and consequently, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. and the counsel for the victim, Shri Ravindra Kumar, vehemently opposed the bail application of the accused, Jahid Ali, in connection with Case Crime No. 186 of 2025. The application challenged the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Lakhimpur Kheri. The opposition was based on the gravity of the offense?the brutal murder of the minor son of the informant, due to land enmity. The FIR was lodged under Sections 103(1) BNS and 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, among others. The prosecution strongly relied on the postmortem report, which found a fractured hyoid bone and the cause of death as Asphyxia due to antemortem hanging, indicating strangulation and staging. The lower court's rejection order, which was challenged, was upheld by the High Court's observation that the prosecution's case rests solely on motive and circumstantial evidence of villagers seeing the accused nearby after the incident, with no direct eye-witness found. The accused has been languishing in jail since 05.07.2025.
Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and material available on record, and after hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the case is arising out of Case Crime No. 186 of 2025 at P.S. Nighasan, District Lakhimpur Kheri, involving the Applicant/Accused, Jahid Ali, who has been in jail since 05.07.2025 over the alleged brutal murder of the victim, a minor, whose body was then hung from a tree to stage a suicide. It transpires that the informant is not an eye witness; during the course of the investigation, the submissions of some villagers were recorded who stated that the applicant and other co-accused were seen nearby the informant's field after the incident, but these statements did not directly connect the applicant/accused to the incident. Consequently, no eye witness was found. The allegation against the applicant is based only on the motive of enmity/land dispute. The Court further notes that the chain of circumstance evidence is completed. The criminal history of the applicant, which includes involvement in Case Crime No. 19/23 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)5a SC/ST Act P.S. Nighasan, District Kheri, has been explained by the learned counsel.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the court of learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Lakhimpur Kheri, arising out of Case Crime No. 186 of 2025, under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(V) of the S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Nighasan, District Lakhimpur Kheri is set aside.
Let the appellant- Jahid Ali be released on bail in the aforesaid Case Crime No. 186/2025 under Section : 103(1)BNS,3(2) and 5SC/ST Act of Police Station Nighasan, District Lakhimpur Kheri on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions-
(1) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial.
(ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during tria.
(iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.
(v) The appellant 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 tamper with the evidence.
(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
(vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.PC.
In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law
As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order.
As prayed by learned counsel for the appellant, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case and make an endeavour to conclude the proceedings expeditiously in accordance with law.
(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.)
October 17, 2025
Haseen U.
