High Court

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State are taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the material available on record.

3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Irsad with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Saharanpur in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.4261 of 2024 and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.41 of 2024 under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Partapur, District - Meerut.

4. Deceased Harsh aged about 14 years, the son of the informant - Veerpal Jatav, was taken away by accused Arslan and Lakhanpal from his house on 25.12.2023. The 'last seen together' was witnessed by Ratan and Ompal, who informed the informant that they had seen the aforesaid persons taking liquor alongwith his son. The son of the informant was not traced despite deep search but suddenly on 26.1.2024, the dead body of the deceased Harsh was found in the canal of the forest of Gram Dilna, P.S. Bhojpur, District Ghaziabad. Inquest and postmortem proceedings were performed and the F.I.R. was lodged on 3.2.2024.

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 further submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that as per prosecution story, the deceased was taken away by Lakhanpal and Arsalan, the accused persons on 25.12.2023. Ratan and Ompal are said to be the eyewitness of last seen. It is also submitted that the dead body of the deceased was discovered one month after the evidence of last seen together. It is also submitted that the gap between the last seen together and the finding of the dead body is material in this case. The dead body was recovered about one month after taken away the deceased by the accused persons. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged very belatedly. It is also submitted that although the informant in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that the deceased and the accused persons had some dispute regarding motorcycle 15 to 20 days before the incident but no substantive evidence was adduced before the I.O. for the same. It is also submitted that in the postmortem report, cause of death was not ascertained and viscera was preserved but as a matter of fact, no viscera report is available on record or collected by the I.O. It is also submitted that the criminal history of one case shown against the appellant has been explained. It is also submitted that the trial Court 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. Appellant is in jail since 14.02.2024. 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 AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the appeal and prayer for bail but however they could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the dead body of the deceased was found one month after the evidence of last seen and in the postmortem report it has been mentioned by the doctor that the probable time of death was about 4 to 6 days.

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, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. 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, set-aside.

10. Let the appellant - Irsad involved in Case Crime No.41 of 2024 under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Partapur, District - Meerut be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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. (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. Order Date :- 17.2.2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State are taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the material available on record.

3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Irsad with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Saharanpur in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.4261 of 2024 and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.41 of 2024 under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Partapur, District - Meerut.

4. Deceased Harsh aged about 14 years, the son of the informant - Veerpal Jatav, was taken away by accused Arslan and Lakhanpal from his house on 25.12.2023. The 'last seen together' was witnessed by Ratan and Ompal, who informed the informant that they had seen the aforesaid persons taking liquor alongwith his son. The son of the informant was not traced despite deep search but suddenly on 26.1.2024, the dead body of the deceased Harsh was found in the canal of the forest of Gram Dilna, P.S. Bhojpur, District Ghaziabad. Inquest and postmortem proceedings were performed and the F.I.R. was lodged on 3.2.2024.

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 further submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that as per prosecution story, the deceased was taken away by Lakhanpal and Arsalan, the accused persons on 25.12.2023. Ratan and Ompal are said to be the eyewitness of last seen. It is also submitted that the dead body of the deceased was discovered one month after the evidence of last seen together. It is also submitted that the gap between the last seen together and the finding of the dead body is material in this case. The dead body was recovered about one month after taken away the deceased by the accused persons. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged very belatedly. It is also submitted that although the informant in his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that the deceased and the accused persons had some dispute regarding motorcycle 15 to 20 days before the incident but no substantive evidence was adduced before the I.O. for the same. It is also submitted that in the postmortem report, cause of death was not ascertained and viscera was preserved but as a matter of fact, no viscera report is available on record or collected by the I.O. It is also submitted that the criminal history of one case shown against the appellant has been explained. It is also submitted that the trial Court 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. Appellant is in jail since 14.02.2024. 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 AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the appeal and prayer for bail but however they could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the dead body of the deceased was found one month after the evidence of last seen and in the postmortem report it has been mentioned by the doctor that the probable time of death was about 4 to 6 days.

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, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. 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, set-aside.

10. Let the appellant - Irsad involved in Case Crime No.41 of 2024 under Sections 302, 201, 34 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Partapur, District - Meerut be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy 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. (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. Order Date :- 17.2.2025