High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:191011 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3720 of 2024
Legal Reasoning
Appellant :- Mohit Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Sunil Vashisth Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Kushagra Srivastava,Shahrukh Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today annexing the inquest report is taken on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Mohit with the prayer to set-aside the bail rejection order dated 12.01.2024 passed by the Learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.313 of 2023 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 506, 34 IPC and 3 (2) 5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Parikshitgarh, District Meerut. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the entire record. 4. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that due to some dispute regarding labour charge between the deceased and co- accused Vijay Pal on 25.10.2023, deceased was taken from his home by co-accused Vijay Pal, Harsh and Sunder and two other unknown persons on the pretext of payment of money and when he did not return, his son Vansh Priya, the informant alongwith his brother went to the field of co-accused Vijay Pal and they saw that their father was being bitterly assaulted by all the aforesaid five persons and subsequently found him dead when they came again on the spot. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation, now charge- sheet has been submitted in this matter. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. For the first time, in the confessional statement of co-accused Vijay Pal, his name came to surface, but even in that statement, no specific role has been assigned to the present appellant. It is also submitted that as per F.I.R. of this case, the informant and his brother are said to be the eyewitnesses of the occurrence, but in the statement of alleged eyewitness Kanishk and in the additional statement of informant Vansh Priya given to the I.O., it has been clearly stated by them that they never saw the occurrence and they were not present on the spot when the incident took place. It is further submitted that co-accused Sundar and Harsh, whose names find place in the FIR were exonerated by the I.O. during investigation. It is further submitted that the FIR of this case is anti-timed and the statements of witnesses were recorded after much delay by the I.O. of the case. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not explained the situation that to how the police officer reached at the crime scene first and the dead body was brought to the police station by them but no FIR was lodged at that time. It is also submitted that even in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the informant which was firstly recorded by the I.O., he has not named the present appellant. It is also submitted that it is also alleged that a videography was also prepared of the said occurrence, but the present appellant has not been shown in the aforesaid alleged video. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 28.10.2023. It is also submitted that after some investigation, three alleged eyewitnesses were falsely procured by the I.O. and the present appellant, on the basis of their false statements, which was recorded very belatedly, was falsely implicated in this matter. It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Meerut. It is further submitted that the Court below while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. It is lastly submitted 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 respondent no.2 opposing the prayer for bail 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. It is further submitted that the FIR of this case was not anti-timed and in the inquest report itself it has been mentioned through Station Officer, Ichauli that he had got the information of murder of the deceased Indu Shekhar and he himself has proceeded for the spot and on this information was sent by the S.H.O. Inchauli. The police force reached the spot for the proceedings of inquest and the family members of the deceased were also present there and the inquest report further reveals that the information was already given to the police which was written down in the G.D. of the police station. It is also submitted that it is a case of contractual murder since the present accused appellant was not known to the informant and his brother. It is also submitted that though the present appellant was not named in the F.I.R., but alongwith three other co-accused persons, two unknown persons have been named and one of them is the present appellant. It is also submitted that there are three eyewitnesses of the occurrence, who have given positive ocular version of the occurrence before the I.O. and specific role of the present appellant has been assigned by them of catching hold the hands of the deceased. It is also submitted that firstly, the deceased was shot by desi pistol and thereafter he was strangulated by the accused persons and in the postmortem report, cause of death of the deceased has been found as strangulation. It is also submitted that after lodging of the F.I.R., within one week the statement of all the three eyewitnesses namely, Ravi, Babu Ram and Prem Chandra has been recorded by the I.O. and after collecting ample and sufficient evidence against the accused appellant, charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter. It is also submitted that the incident of murder of the deceased was enjoyed by all the accused persons and it was also video-recorded by them. It is also submitted that the two brothers of the deceased namely, Ratan Pal and Kishnajar have also named the present accused appellant along with other co-accused persons, who were present on spot. It is also submitted that the deceased belonged to weaker section of the Society and ample evidence was collected by the I.O. against the present accused appellant as well and his active participation in the commission of the crime has been come into light on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation. It is further submitted that the appeal filed by the co-accused Sanjay being Crl. Appeal No. 907 of 2024 has been dismissed vide order dated 5.4.2024 and appeal filed by co-accused Bhopal being Crl. Appeal No. 6612 of 2024 has been dismissed vide order dated 3.9.2024 by this Court. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant relates to the merits of this case, which cannot be dealt with at this stage. The appellant is not entitled for any relaxation and his bail application is liable to be rejected and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 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. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the court concerned has properly considered the case of the appellant. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. The Court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 25.11.2024 ss