# Krishna Rastogi v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 189
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-11
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 4197 of 2025
- **Bench:** Shekhar Kumar Yadav
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/krishna-rastogi-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53884
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

The appeal was filed to set aside the order
dated 10.04.2025. The allegation was that the
appellant along with the co-accused persons,
called the victim's son and caused his murder.

Headnotes
A. Criminal matter-Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities
Ac),1989-Section 14-A(2), 3(2)5-Bhartiya
Nayay
Sanhita,2023-Sections
103(1),
3(5), 191(2), 190, 61(2) and section 35 of
Arms Act-The court applied that general
principles governing the grant of bailConsidering the facts and circumstances,
the nature of offence, complicity of the
accused, nature of injury, evidence, role
assigned to the present appellant, a case
for bail was made out.
Held
The court overruled the lower court decision,
finding that despite serious charges, includng
those under SC/ST Act, the established legal
criteria for granting bail were met in the
appellant's favour.(Para 7 to 10) (E-6)

List of Acts
Scheduled
Castes
&
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities Act),1989, Bhartiya
Nayay Sanhita,2023, Arms Act.

List of Keywords
Charges, injuries, languishing in jail, prosecution
story, criminal history, impugned FIR, false and
fabricated,
release,
Dhampur,
independent
witness, complicity, community, victim,personal
bond,sureties, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act),1989,
Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita,2023, Arms Act.

Case Arising from
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION-
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4197 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Krishna Rastogi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Appellant(s)
 Deepak Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)
G.A., Praveen Kumar

## Text

9 All. Krishna Rastogi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
189

33. Thus, the appeal is dismissed. The
accused appellant is on bail. His bail bonds
are forfeited. He is directed to be taken into
custody.

34. The judgment of this Court along
with the record shall be sent to the Trial
Court for taking necessary steps so that the
accused-appellant may surrender and serve
the remaining sentence.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 189
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4197 of 2025

Krishna Rastogi ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Deepak Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Praveen Kumar

Issue for Consideration
The appeal was filed to set aside the order
dated 10.04.2025. The allegation was that the
appellant along with the co-accused persons,
called the victim's son and caused his murder.

Headnotes
A. Criminal matter-Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities
Ac),1989-Section 14-A(2), 3(2)5-Bhartiya
Nayay
Sanhita,2023-Sections
103(1),
3(5), 191(2), 190, 61(2) and section 35 of
Arms Act-The court applied that general
principles governing the grant of bailConsidering the facts and circumstances,
the nature of offence, complicity of the
accused, nature of injury, evidence, role
assigned to the present appellant, a case
for bail was made out.
Held
The court overruled the lower court decision,
finding that despite serious charges, includng
those under SC/ST Act, the established legal
criteria for granting bail were met in the
appellant's favour.(Para 7 to 10) (E-6)

List of Acts
Scheduled
Castes
&
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities Act),1989, Bhartiya
Nayay Sanhita,2023, Arms Act.

List of Keywords
Charges, injuries, languishing in jail, prosecution
story, criminal history, impugned FIR, false and
fabricated,
release,
Dhampur,
independent
witness, complicity, community, victim,personal
bond,sureties, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act),1989,
Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita,2023, Arms Act.

Case Arising from
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION-
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4197 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.09.2025
of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
Krishna Rastogi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Appellant(s)
 Deepak Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)
G.A., Praveen Kumar

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar
Yadav, J.)

1. In this case notice has already been
served upon the informant.

2. The present criminal appeal under
Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act has been filed by the appellantKrishna Rastogi to set aside the order
dated 10.04.2025 in Bail Application No.
1837 of 25 and to release him on bail in
Case Crime No.564 of 2024 under Sections
190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
103(1), 3(5), 191(2), 190 and section 61(2)
of BNS, section 3(2)5 SC/ST Act and
Section 35 Arms Act, P.S. Dhampur,
District Bijnor.

3. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant, the learned AGA for the Staterespondent no.1 and perused the entire
record.

4. According to the prosecution case,
the incident took place on 16.12.2024 and
the FIR of this incident has been lodged on
the same day stating therein that on the day
of incident appellant along with other coaccused persons called him and caused the
murder of her son and for this incident the
information has given to her by the friends
of her son.

5. Submission of learned counsel for
the appellant is that the appellant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in
this case. The appellant has not committed
any offence as alleged in the impugned
FIR. Further submission is that the
prosecution story is totally false and
fabricated.
Essential
ingredients
to
constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act
are lacking in the matter. Appellant is
languishing in jail since 19.12.2024. The
appellant is having no criminal history.
Learned counsel for the appellant next
submitted that the appellant has been
implicated due to enmity, There is no
independent witness of the incident and
nothing incriminating has been recovered
from the possession of the appellant. The
appellant had no motive to commit the
murder. Further submission is that the
impugned
order
rejecting
the
bail
application of the appellant suffers from
infirmity
and
illegality
warranting
interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A.
as well as learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 opposing the prayer for bail had
have
submitted
that
the
appellant
committed the present offence having
knowledge that the victim belonged to
S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity
or illegality in the impugned order.

7.
I
have
considered
the
rival
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and have gone through the
entire record including the impugned order
carefully.

8. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and keeping in
view the nature of the offence, evidence,
complicity of the accused, role assigned to
the present appellant and the nature of
injury, the Court is of the opinion that the
appellant has made out a case for bail. The
Court below erred in rejecting the bail
application of the appellant. The impugned
order suffers from infirmity and illegality
and the same is liable to be set-aside and
the appeal is liable to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed
and the impugned order rejecting the bail
application of the appellant is hereby setaside.

10. Let the appellant-Krishna Rastogi
involved in aforesaid case crime number be
released on bail on furnishing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned subject to following conditions.
Further, before issuing the release order,
the sureties be verified.

(i) The appellant will not tamper
with the evidence during the trial.
9 All. Rajesh Chhabra Vs. Radhey Lal Jeswani & Ors.
191

(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.

11. 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) 9 ILRA 191
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 60 of 2011
&
First Appeal No. 70 of 2011

Rajesh Chhabra ...Appellant
Versus
Radhey Lal Jeswani & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
K.K. Tiwari, Rishikesh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Arvind Srivastava, Ashish Kumar Singh,
Hari Manish Bahadur Sinha, Jitendra Kumar
Srivastava, Pushkar Srivastava, Ram Dayal
Tiwari, Udayan Nandan

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to whether the ex parte decree
dated 31.03.1999 passed in Original Suit No. 28
of
1996,
which
declared
ownership
and
possession of Bungalow No. 329, Jhokan Bagh,
Jhansi in favour of plaintiff's father, operated as
res judicata regarding title and possession of
disputed property, or whether it could be
impeached
in
present
proceedings
as
a
fraudulent and collusive decree obtained against
a minor not duly represented before the court.

Headnotes
Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation
Of Letting, Rent And Eviction) Act, 1972 -
s. 21 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - ss. 34, 38
and 41(h) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- s. 10, O. 9 R. 13 - Limitation Act, 1963 -
s. 6 - Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 - s. 39
- Appellant filed a civil suit seeking
declaration of ownership and possession
over Bungalow No. 329, Jhokan Bagh,
Jhansi, contending that property originally
belonged to his grandfather who had
constructed it and remained its absolute
owner - Upon his grandfather death,
property devolved upon his son, i.e.
appellant's father - Appellant alleged that
ex parte decree dated 31.03.1999, passed
in Original Suit declaring ownership and
possession in favour of his father, was
fraudulent and collusive, having been
obtained when appellant was minor and
without proper representation through a
court-appointed guardian - It was further
asserted that, taking advantage of said
decree, defendants attempted to interfere
with appellant's lawful possession and
alienate portions of property - Defendants
denied these allegations, asserting that ex
parte decree was valid, conclusive and
operated as res judicata between the
parties - Trial court dismissed plaintiff's
suit, upholding binding nature of 1999
decree, leading appellant to prefer the
instant
First
Appeal
u/s
96
C.P.C.,
challenging validity of decree on grounds