VEERU VISHWAKARMA @ VEER BAHADUR VISHWAKARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                     CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3530 of 2026

Veeru Vishwakarma @ Veer Bahadur Vishwakarma
                                                                                   .....Appellant(s)
                                               Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                                .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)                   : Ajeet Shukla, Sanjay Vikram Singh,
                                             Shubham Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)                  : G.A.

Court No. - 76
                             HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Sanjay Vikram Singh and Sri Ajit Shukla, learned counsel for
the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Ajay
Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.

3. On 02.09.2026, the following order was passed:-

     "1. List revised.


     2. Sri Sanjay Vikram Singh and Sri Ajeet Shukla, learned counsels for the appellant and
     Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State are present.


     3. Vide order dated 08.04.2026 notice was issued to the opposite party no.2. As per the
     office report dated 19.08.2026 a report regarding service of notice has been received
     which is flagged as flag 'M'. The report dated 04.08.2026 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
     Jaunpur along with the report dated 30.07.2026 of the Police Station Sarai Khwaja,
     District Jaunpur with the thumb impression as acknowledgement of the opposite party no.2
     is annexed is on record which states that notice has been served on the opposite party no.2
     personally. The notice thus is sufficient. Even sufficient time has elapsed since service of
     notice. Despite service of notice neither the opposite party no.2 is present nor there is any
     representation on his behalf.


     4. Learned counsel for the State submits that he his file has not come from his office and
     prays for adjournment for a week.


     5. Prayer is allowed.


     6. Let the matter be listed on 09.09.2026 as fresh.
                                                                           CRLA No. 3530 of 2026
                                          2

     7. Learned counsel for the State shall ensure that his file is available when the matter is
     listed next."


4. Even today, despite service of notice even in the revised call, there is no
representation on behalf of opposite party No. 2.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that his file with instructions are
available. The Court proceeds to hear the matter.

6. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the
appellant - Veeru Vishwakarma @ Veer Bahadur Vishwakarma with the
prayer to set aside the order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the Special Judge
(SC/ST Act), Jaunpur in Bail Application No. 101 / 2026 (Veeru
Vishwakarma @ Veer Bahadur Vishwakarma Vs. State of U.P.) arising out
of Case Crime No. 59 of 2026, under Sections 109(1), 3(5) B.N.S. and
Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Saraikhwaja, District Jaunpur
with a further prayer to release the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case
during the pendency of trial.

7.The First Information Report in the present matter was lodged on
08.02.2026 by Gorakh Sonkar against the appellant, alleging therein that on
08.02.2026, at about 5:30 P.M., his brother, Deepak Sonkar, and Pankaj
Sonkar were fired upon by the accused, as a result of which the shot struck
his leg. The accused fired with an intention to murder. Report be lodged and
action be taken.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that Deepak was found
to have received lacerated wound on his body which reads as under:

     "(1) Lacerated wound: of size about 1 cm x 1 cm present over antero-medial surface of
     right foot about 11 cm anterior to medial malleolus of right foot."


8.1 The said injury was opined to be kept under observation and caused by
hard and blunt object. It is submitted that he was subjected to X-ray wherein
fracture was found on Ist metatarsal with a foreign body of metallic density
of oblong shape in the injury. X-ray report reads as follows:

     "(1) X-Ray Rt. Foot Showing fracture of Ist metatarsal and foreign body of metallic
     denisity of oblong shaped and of size 0.57 x 0.33 inch (of radio opaque shadow) seen part
     under view."
                                                                       CRLA No. 3530 of 2026
                                          3


8.2 It is submitted that Pankaj Sonkar was found to have received traumatic
swelling over anterior surface right thigh on his body. The following injury
reads as under:

     "(1) Traumatic swelling with COP: Size about 9 cm x 6 cm present over anterior surface
     Right thigh Adv. X-Ray Rt. thigh."


8.3 The opinion of the doctor was that injury kept under observation and
caused by hard object. In the X-ray, a fracture of the femur in the right thigh
was found.

9. It is submitted that subsequently, both the injured persons assigned the
role of firing upon Deepak Sonkar, causing injury to his leg, to the appellant.
It is further submitted that although Pankaj Sonkar stated that he was
subsequently fired upon by the appellant, he ran away and, fell into a ditch,
due to which he sustained a fracture. It is submitted that the fracture
sustained by Deepak Sonkar is on a non-vital part of the body. The
investigation in the matter has been concluded, and the charge-sheet has
been submitted. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been
recovered from the possession of the appellant. It is also submitted that the
appellant has no criminal history, as stated in paragraph 28 of the affidavit. It
is submitted that in the FIR, a common and general role was assigned to the
appellant; however, subsequently, in the statements of the injured persons,
the specific role of firing was assigned to the appellant. It is submitted that
the appellant is in jail since 07.03.2026.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

11. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is evident that the injury sustained by Deepak Sonkar was on his
foot, which resulted in a fracture. Although Pankaj Sonkar also sustained a
fracture, the same is stated to have been caused by his falling into a ditch.
The investigation in the matter has been concluded, and the charge-sheet has
been filed. In the FIR, a common and general role was assigned to all three
accused; however, during the course of investigation, specific roles were
assigned to them. There is no recovery of any incriminating material from
the appellant.

12. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of
evidence and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the
                                                            CRLA No. 3530 of 2026
                                  4


possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the
appellant may be enlarged on bail.

13.   Let   the   appellant- Veeru     Vishwakarma        @    Veer    Bahadur
Vishwakarma, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on
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 will not tamper with prosecution evidence and will not
harm or harass the victim/complainant in any manner whatsoever.

(ii) The appellant will abide the orders of court, will attend the court on
every date and will not delay the disposal of trial in any manner whatsoever.

(iii) The appellant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek
any adjournment on the date 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.

(iv) The appellant will not misuse the liberty of bail in any manner
whatsoever. In case, the appellant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and
in order to secure his presence proclamation under section 84 B.N.S.S., 2023
may be issued and if appellant 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 209 B.N.S., 2023.

(v) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on
dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3)
recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S., 2023. If in the opinion of
the trial court absence of the appellant is deliberate or without sufficient
cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of
liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law and the trial
court may proceed against him under Section 269 B.N.S., 2023.

(vi) The trial court may make all possible efforts/endeavour and try to
conclude the trial expeditiously after the release of the appellant.

14. The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by
court concerned and in case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned
                                                                                               CRLA No. 3530 of 2026
                                                                     5


                                    above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail and send the
                                    appellant to prison.

                                    15. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.

                                    16. The impugned order dated 24.03.2026 passed by the Special Judge
                                    (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur of the aforesaid case is hereby set aside.

                                    17. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

                                    September 16, 2026
                                    Mukesh Kr.
                                                                                                    (Samit Gopal,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad