High Court

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today 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 - Harendra Sahani with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 3.7.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kushinagar and release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 48 of 2024 under Sections 307, 504 IPC, 4/25 Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(S) and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Khadda, District Kushinagar.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. None is present for the informant / opposite party no.2 despite service of notice.

4. On 6.3.2024 an altercation between two rival groups took place in a marriage procession and it is alleged that the present appellant with intention to kill made an assault with sharp edged weapon in the abdomen of injured, son of the informant, who sustained serious injuries and was medically examined. F.I.R. was lodged for the offence under Sections 307, 504 IPC and after investigation charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 307, 504 IPC, 4/25 Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(S) and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act.

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 essential ingredients to constitute offence under Section 307 IPC are completely missing in this case. There was no premeditation of mind on the part of the appellant to cause injury upon the injured but in a sudden quarrel assault was made in the marriage procession. It is also submitted that the other side also made an assault upon the present appellant. Though no F.I.R. was lodged in this connection by the present appellant but he was medically examined and medical examination report is available on record. It is also submitted that the recovery of weapon 'knife' on the pointing out of the present appellant is a false and concocted story of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the doctor has found only one injury in the abdomen of the injured, as reveals from the statement of the doctor himself whereas the injured - PW-2 in his examination-in-chief utters that the injuries by knife were inflicted several times by the present appellant. In his statement PW- 2/injured has admitted that he had fallen on some pointed object and injury was caused to him. In the injury report, the doctor has found penetrated injury in the abdomen of the injured which in itself is an evidence that the injury caused to the injured was not due to the assault made by the appellant by knife rather he sustained injury on account of falling on some pointed object. Appellant has no criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute offence under SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. The appellant is in jail since 9.3.2024. The Court concerned 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 AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the injured belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is further submitted that the injured witness in his statement recorded before the Court has assigned specific role of assault with knife to the present appellant. There is no possibility of false implication of the appellant by the prosecution side. It is also submitted that the doctor in his statement given to the I.O. has specifically stated that the injury caused to the injured was grievous in nature and his death might be occurred due to the said injury, however, he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the injury caused to the injured by the present appellant was not premeditated and was a result of heat and passion of the sudden quarrel.

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, statement of the injured himself that he had fallen on some pointed object and injury was caused to him, detention period of the appellant, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned 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 set-aside.

10. Let the aforesaid appellant involved in the 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. (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 :- 12.3.2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today 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 - Harendra Sahani with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 3.7.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kushinagar and release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 48 of 2024 under Sections 307, 504 IPC, 4/25 Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(S) and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Khadda, District Kushinagar.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. None is present for the informant / opposite party no.2 despite service of notice.

4. On 6.3.2024 an altercation between two rival groups took place in a marriage procession and it is alleged that the present appellant with intention to kill made an assault with sharp edged weapon in the abdomen of injured, son of the informant, who sustained serious injuries and was medically examined. F.I.R. was lodged for the offence under Sections 307, 504 IPC and after investigation charge sheet has been submitted under Sections 307, 504 IPC, 4/25 Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(S) and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act.

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 essential ingredients to constitute offence under Section 307 IPC are completely missing in this case. There was no premeditation of mind on the part of the appellant to cause injury upon the injured but in a sudden quarrel assault was made in the marriage procession. It is also submitted that the other side also made an assault upon the present appellant. Though no F.I.R. was lodged in this connection by the present appellant but he was medically examined and medical examination report is available on record. It is also submitted that the recovery of weapon 'knife' on the pointing out of the present appellant is a false and concocted story of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the doctor has found only one injury in the abdomen of the injured, as reveals from the statement of the doctor himself whereas the injured - PW-2 in his examination-in-chief utters that the injuries by knife were inflicted several times by the present appellant. In his statement PW- 2/injured has admitted that he had fallen on some pointed object and injury was caused to him. In the injury report, the doctor has found penetrated injury in the abdomen of the injured which in itself is an evidence that the injury caused to the injured was not due to the assault made by the appellant by knife rather he sustained injury on account of falling on some pointed object. Appellant has no criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute offence under SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. The appellant is in jail since 9.3.2024. The Court concerned 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 AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the injured belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is further submitted that the injured witness in his statement recorded before the Court has assigned specific role of assault with knife to the present appellant. There is no possibility of false implication of the appellant by the prosecution side. It is also submitted that the doctor in his statement given to the I.O. has specifically stated that the injury caused to the injured was grievous in nature and his death might be occurred due to the said injury, however, he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the injury caused to the injured by the present appellant was not premeditated and was a result of heat and passion of the sudden quarrel.

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, statement of the injured himself that he had fallen on some pointed object and injury was caused to him, detention period of the appellant, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned 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 set-aside.

10. Let the aforesaid appellant involved in the 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. (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 :- 12.3.2025