[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Shatrohan @ Sabhodhan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 15 April, 2026
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:25799
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4055 of 2025
Shatrohan @ Sabhodhan
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Dheeraj Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A., Neeraj Singh
Court No. - 12
HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1-State and Ms. Sweta Mishra Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Neeraj Singh learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5.
2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 18th September 2025 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, court no. 2, Unnao, arising out of Case Crime No. 346 of 2025, under Sections 190, 191(2), 115(2), 105, 117(2), 352 and 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Safipur, District Unnao, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.
3. As per contents of first information report, incident is said to have taken place on 13th August 2025 when the applicant along with co-accused started planting saplings on the property of informant, which was opposed by her due to which said persons attacked her, resulting in serious injury. It is also stated that when the applicant went to register first information report, the said persons along with others including the applicant barged into her house and attacked her father-in-law, Vishnu and her daughter, Shweta and Priyanka, due to which they also suffered grievous injuries and Vishnu passed away.
4. It is submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in allegations levelled against him and that allegations clearly indicate sudden provocation due to which the incident occurred. It is also submitted that even as per the statement of the injured, the role assigned to appellant is of causing injuries to the deceased on his right shoulder by a stick (lathi) while general role has been assigned to everyone for inflicting abdominal injuries upon the deceased. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the postmortem report to indicate two injuries on the deceased, with one bone fracture 5 cm below the left shoulder joint and the second injury being contused swelling present over upper abdomen just above umbilicus. It is further submitted that the other injuries of the other injured are simple in nature. It is therefore submitted that since there is no allegation levelled against the appellant, particularly with regard to injury caused on the upper abdomen of deceased, role of the appellant is not made out. It is further submitted that the appellant without previous criminal history is under incarceration since 16th August 2025.
5. Learned counsel for respondents has opposed bail application with submission that postmortem report clearly indicates death due to shock and haemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries and that two injuries conjointly have been indicated in the postmortem report. Learned counsel has also indicated statements of injured to submit that aforesaid injuries have been attributed to the appellant. Learned A.G.A. however admits that appellant does not have any previous criminal history.
6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of the material on record, at this stage without entering into the merits of the case and subject to evidence being led in trial, it appears that general allegations have been levelled at the first stage of the altercation when saplings were being planted and that subsequently when the appellant along with other co-accused is said to have barged into the house of the informant, fatal injuries have been indicated. It also appears from statements that role of appellant in the aforesaid altercation is of having caused injury on the left shoulder of the deceased while general allegations have been levelled regarding other injuries suffered by deceased in his abdomen. The postmortem report indicates that death having occurred due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries. The postmortem report however indicates first injury over left mid arm with underlying bone fracture below left shoulder joint and the second injury over the upper abdomen just above umbilicus. At this stage, it does not appear either of the injuries were caused by appellant The aspect of second part of the incident having occurred within the residence of the informant would required to be examined during course of trial for the purposes of the applicability of the SC/ST Act. The appellant without previous criminal history is under incarceration since 16th August 2025. Other injured persons have suffered simple injuries.
7. Considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for appellant, it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed without appreciating the submission made on behalf of appellant and as such the order impugned by the court below is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 18th September 2025 is set aside.
9. Let appellant/applicant Shatrohan @ Sabhodhan, 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 to 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 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
(vi) In case, the appellant/applicant misuses the liberty of bail 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 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). 10. The pending application if any too stands disposed of.
(Manish Mathur,J.)
April 15, 2026
prabhat
