# Danish @ Bakra @ Dilshad v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 6 ILRA 66
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-06-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 2284 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sameer Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/danish-bakra-dilshad-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54610
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(2)(5) &
14-A(2) - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Section - 201 & 302- Criminal Appeal - filed
u/s 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act, - for quashing the
impugned order - whereby court below rejected
the Bail Application - FIR - offence of murder -
arrest - Bail application - Rejected - plea taken
in defence that, though appellant is named in
FIR but it is a case of circumstantial evidence
and merely on the basis of alleged evidence of
last seen appellant has been made accused -
court finds that, it is a case of circumstantial
evidence and it appears except the evidence of
last seen and the fact that on the pointing out
of the appellant on brick allegedly used in crime
was recovered and there is no other evidence -
as well as no any previous criminal history -
held, merely on the basis of recovery of a brick
on the pointing out of the appellant at this stage
it cannot be said that appellant committed the
murder - consequently, impugned order by
which bail application of the applicant has been
dismissed by the court concerned is illegal and
is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled
to be released on bail - instant appeal stands
allowed - Appellant be released on bail with
strict conditions to prevent tampering with
evidence or influencing witnesses, allowing the
prosecution to seek cancellation if any condition
is breached. (Para - 11, 13, 14, 15, 16)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

## Text

66 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10. However, as per allegation
under the false promise of marriage
appellant sexually exploited the opposite
party no.2 and committed rape upon her
and also prepared obscene video of
opposite party no.2 but alleged obscene
video of the opposite party no.2 is not on
record to substantiate her allegation in this
regard.

11. Further, admittedly, opposite
party no.2 i.e. informant of the case is
major lady and considering the nature of
allegation levelled against the appellant
prima facie present case appears to be a
case of consensual relationship.

12. Further, appellant is not having
any previous criminal history and in the
present
matter
he
is
in
jail
since
19.01.2025.

13. Therefore, considering the
facts and circumstances of the case,
discussed above, in my view, impugned
order dated 05.03.2025 by which bail
application of the appellant has been
dismissed by the court concerned is
illegal and is liable to be set aside and
appellant is entitled to be released on
bail in the instant matter.

14. Accordingly, the instant appeal
stands allowed and the impugned order
dated 05.03.2025 passed by the court
concerned is hereby set aside and without
expressing any opinion on the merit of the
case, appellant is directed to be enlarged on
bail in the instant matter.

15.
Let
appellant
Anshu
Kushwaha, be released on bail in the
aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal
bond and two reliable sureties in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned with the following conditions:

 (i) The appellant will not tamper
with the evidence during the trial.

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

 (iii) The appellant will appear
before the trial court on the date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted.

 (iv) The appellant shall not
commit an offence similar to the offence of
which he is accused, or suspected, of the
commission of which he is suspected.

 (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.

16. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation
application before this Court.
----------
(2025) 6 ILRA 66
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.06.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2284 of 2025

Danish @ Bakra @ Dilshad ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties
6 All. Danish @ Bakra @ Dilshad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
67
Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri J.B. Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(2)(5) &
14-A(2) - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Section - 201 & 302- Criminal Appeal - filed
u/s 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act, - for quashing the
impugned order - whereby court below rejected
the Bail Application - FIR - offence of murder -
arrest - Bail application - Rejected - plea taken
in defence that, though appellant is named in
FIR but it is a case of circumstantial evidence
and merely on the basis of alleged evidence of
last seen appellant has been made accused -
court finds that, it is a case of circumstantial
evidence and it appears except the evidence of
last seen and the fact that on the pointing out
of the appellant on brick allegedly used in crime
was recovered and there is no other evidence -
as well as no any previous criminal history -
held, merely on the basis of recovery of a brick
on the pointing out of the appellant at this stage
it cannot be said that appellant committed the
murder - consequently, impugned order by
which bail application of the applicant has been
dismissed by the court concerned is illegal and
is liable to be set aside and appellant is entitled
to be released on bail - instant appeal stands
allowed - Appellant be released on bail with
strict conditions to prevent tampering with
evidence or influencing witnesses, allowing the
prosecution to seek cancellation if any condition
is breached. (Para - 11, 13, 14, 15, 16)

Application Allowed. (E-11)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sameer Jain, J.)

1.
As
per
office
report
dated
30.04.2025 notice has been served to the
opposite no.2. personally. Despite service
of notice none appeared on behalf of
opposite party no.2. therefore the instant
appeal is being heard on merits.

2. Heard Sri J.B. Singh, learned
counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajeev
Dhar
Dwivedi,
learned
Additional
Government Advocate for the Staterespondent.

3. This criminal appeal under
Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, has been filed by the
appellant with a prayer to quash the order
dated 29-11-2024 passed by learned
Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gautam
Budh Nagar in Bail Application No. 4489
of 2024 (Danish @ Bakra @ Dilshad Vs.
State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime
No. 177 of 2024 Under Section- 302/201
I.P.C. & section- 3(2)5 of S.C. /S.T. Act
Police Station- Dankaur, District-Gautam
Budh Nagar.

4.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant submits, however appellant is
named in the FIR but it is a case of
circumstantial evidence and it appears
merely on the basis of alleged evidence of
last seen appellant has been made accused
in the present matter.

5. He next submits, from the
statements of witnesses who provided the
evidence of last seen it reflects even the
evidence of last seen is not convincing.

6. He next submits,however, apart
from the evidence of last seen as per
prosecution when appellant was arrested
then on his pointing out one brick used in
the crime was also recovered but entire
recovery is false and baseless. He further
submits, even merely on the basis of such
recovery at this stage, it cannot be said that
appellant committed the murder of the
deceased.
68 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. He further submits except the
above evidence, there is no other evidence
against the appellant on record but in spite
of that court concerned dismissed the bail
application of the appellant vide impugned
order dated 29.11.2024 and therefore,
committed gross illegality and impugned
order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the court
concerned is illegal and is liable to be set
aside and appellant is entitled to be
enlarged on bail in the present matter.

8. He next submits, appellant is not
having any previous criminal history and in
the present matter he is in jail since
02.07.2024 i.e. for last more than 11
months.

9.
Per
contra,
learned
AGA
opposed the prayer for bail but could not
dispute the aforesaid facts.

10. I have heard both the parties
and perused the record of the case.

11. It is a case of circumstantial
evidence and it appears except the evidence
of last seen and the fact that on the pointing
out of the appellant one brick allegedly
used in the crime was recovered there is no
other evidence against the appellant on
record.

12. As far as evidence of last seen
is
concerned
after
considering
the
statements of the witnesses this court finds
merit in the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellant that
evidence of last seen is not convincing.

13. Further, this court also finds
merit in the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the appellant that
merely on the basis of recovery of a brick
on the pointing out of the appellant at this
stage it cannot be said that appellant
committed the murder of the deceased.

14. Further, appellant is not having
any previous criminal history and in the
present matter he is in jail since 02.07.2024
i.e. for last more than 11 months.

15. Therefore, considering the facts
and circumstances of the case, discussed
above, in my view, impugned order dated
29-11-2024 by which bail application of
the appellant has been dismissed by the
court concerned is illegal and is liable to be
set aside and appellant is entitled to be
released on bail in the instant matter.

16. Accordingly, the instant appeal
stands allowed and the impugned order
dated 29-11-2024 passed by the court
concerned is hereby set aside and without
expressing any opinion on the merit of the
case, appellant is directed to be enlarged on
bail in the instant matter.

17. Let appellant Danish @ Bakra
@ Dilshad, be released on bail in the
aforesaid case on his furnishing a personal
bond and two reliable sureties in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned with the following conditions:

 (i) The appellant will not tamper
with the evidence during the trial.

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

 (iii) The appellant will appear
before the trial court on the date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted.

 (iv) The appellant shall not
commit an offence similar to the offence of
6 All. Km. Sunita Vs. Smt. Manju & Ors.
69
which he is accused, or suspected,
of the commission of which he is
suspected.

 (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.

18. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move bail cancellation
application before this Court.
----------
(2025) 6 ILRA 69
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.06.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 2075 of 2024

Km. Sunita ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Manju & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Gaurang Dwivedi, Sri Pranvesh, Sr. Adv.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ajay Sengar, Sri Sanjay Agrawal

Temporary injunction-Transfer of Property
Act-Sec.52-Suit for partition filed by the
appellant-plaintiff- along with 6C-2 -Temporary
Injunction
Application
was
rejected
vide
impugned order-for granting interim injunction-
three factors are required to be considered -
prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss-in present case- it is a case of
partition -and plaintiff and defendants both have
equal right over the property in dispute- unless
it is divided- protection of Section 52 of Transfer
of Property Act-but in case interim injunction is
not granted-will create multiplicity of litigationsimpugned judgment and order and decree are
bad and set aside- parties are directed to
maintain the status quo.

Appeal allowed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. H. Anjanappa & ors.Vs A. Prabhakr & ors.-
Civil Appeal Nos. 1180-1181 of 2025;

2. Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs Kiran Kant Robinson
& ors.:(2020) 13 SCC 773,

3. Kasturi Vs Iyyamperumal & ors.: (2005) 6
SCC 733

4. Vineeta Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma & ors:
AIR 2020 SC 3717

5. M/s Sri Bankhadi Nath Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Vs Dharmendra Kumar Rathore & ors.: 2024(3)
ADJ 723)

6. Amar Singh Vs U.O.I.& ors.: (2011) 7 SCC 69
and

7. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited Vs KS
Infraspace LLP Ltd. & Another: (2020) 5 SCC
410

8. Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. & ors.. Vs Coca Cola
Company & ors.. (1995) 5 SCC 545

9. Zenith Mataplast P. Ltd. Vs St. of Maharashtra
& ors..: (2009) 10 SCC 388

10. Saurabh Gupta Vs Smt. Archana Gupta &
ors.: 2024(3) ADJ 241(LB)

11. Sk. Golam Lalchand Vs Nandu Shaw & ors.
AIR 2024 SC 4193

12. Ramakant Ambalal Choksi Vs Harish Ambalal
Choksi & ors.. MANU/SC/1270/2024
(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned
Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Pranvesh,