High Court

Appellant :- Arun Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ambleshwar Pandey,Anuj Srivastava,Devaang Savla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today annexing the copy of the charge-sheet is taken on record.

2. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of opposite party no.2.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the entire record.

4. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Arun Kumar with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 3.1.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gautam Budh Nagar in Bail Application No.5043 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.504 of 2024, under Section 105 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Phase-I, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

5. The prosecution story as culled out from the F.I.R. is that the deceased Ajay Kumar was living in a room with the present appellant on rent. On 27.10.2024 at about 8:00 P.M., the informant got information that his son Ajay Kumar has received serious head injury in an altercation took place between the said Arun Kumar and his son. He immediately informed his relative Satendra Kumar about the incident, who went to the room of the his son and took him to District Hospital, Noida. Due to serious head injury, the son of the informant was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi where he was operated and his position was very critical. F.I.R. under Section 110 BNS was lodged by the informant on 4.11.2024 and after investigation now charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter under Sections 105 BNS and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. F.I.R. in this case has been lodged very belatedly after about 15 days of the occurrence without any plausible explanation for the delay. It is further submitted that if the contents of the F.I.R. are taken as true, even then no offence is made out against the appellant because it is alleged in the F.I.R. that some altercation took place between the deceased and the appellant and the deceased sustained serious head injury but however there is no eyewitness of the said incident. It is also submitted that the evidence on record reveals that it was the appellant himself who took the deceased to the doctor for treatment after he received injuries. It is also submitted that had the appellant intention to commit murder of the deceased, there was no reason as to why he took him to the hospital for treatment. It is also submitted that from the statement of the material witnesses it is also explicitly clear that when they reached the spot, they saw the deceased in injured condition and his head was bandaged. It is also submitted that the death of the deceased was never caused due to any assault made by the appellant. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. It is also submitted that maximum the present case may be termed as an accidental incident and the appellant had absolutely no knowledge or intention behind the alleged incident. It is also submitted that if the appellant had any motive to do away with the deceased, he could easily run away from the place of occurrence and would never return to the place of occurrence alongwith the deceased. It is also submitted that the appellant is having no criminal antecedents to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 30.11.2024 and as such he is entitled for bail and his appeal deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the present appeal and it has been submitted that the medical evidence in this case completely corroborates the prosecution version and the doctor has found serious head injury to the deceased. It is also submitted that the cause of death in the postmortem report has been found as due to cranio cerebral damage consequent to blunt force impact to the head. All the injuries are ante-mortem in nature. It is also submitted that since no one was present in the room except the deceased and the appellant, it was only the appellant who caused injuries following by the death of the deceased. It is also submitted that the appellant very well knew that the deceased belonged to a marginal section of the society and was a member of S.C./S.T. Community. It is also submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case has collected ample evidence against the appellant and that is why charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 and taking into consideration the fact that the first aid to the injured Ajay Kumar was provided by the appellant himself after taking him to the doctor and bandaging over the wound and further taking into account the fact that there was no previous animosity between the two and the appellant had no intention or knowledge to commit the crime, prima facie it appears to be an accidental incident, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. and that there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the appellant has no criminal antecedents, 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.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

9. Let the appellant Arun Kumar involved in Case Crime No.504 of 2024, under Section 105 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Phase-I, District Gautam Budh Nagar 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.

10. 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 :- 7.7.2025

Appellant :- Arun Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ambleshwar Pandey,Anuj Srivastava,Devaang Savla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today annexing the copy of the charge-sheet is taken on record.

2. Despite service of notice, none appears on behalf of opposite party no.2.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the entire record.

4. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Arun Kumar with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 3.1.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gautam Budh Nagar in Bail Application No.5043 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No.504 of 2024, under Section 105 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Phase-I, District Gautam Budh Nagar.

5. The prosecution story as culled out from the F.I.R. is that the deceased Ajay Kumar was living in a room with the present appellant on rent. On 27.10.2024 at about 8:00 P.M., the informant got information that his son Ajay Kumar has received serious head injury in an altercation took place between the said Arun Kumar and his son. He immediately informed his relative Satendra Kumar about the incident, who went to the room of the his son and took him to District Hospital, Noida. Due to serious head injury, the son of the informant was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi where he was operated and his position was very critical. F.I.R. under Section 110 BNS was lodged by the informant on 4.11.2024 and after investigation now charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter under Sections 105 BNS and 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. F.I.R. in this case has been lodged very belatedly after about 15 days of the occurrence without any plausible explanation for the delay. It is further submitted that if the contents of the F.I.R. are taken as true, even then no offence is made out against the appellant because it is alleged in the F.I.R. that some altercation took place between the deceased and the appellant and the deceased sustained serious head injury but however there is no eyewitness of the said incident. It is also submitted that the evidence on record reveals that it was the appellant himself who took the deceased to the doctor for treatment after he received injuries. It is also submitted that had the appellant intention to commit murder of the deceased, there was no reason as to why he took him to the hospital for treatment. It is also submitted that from the statement of the material witnesses it is also explicitly clear that when they reached the spot, they saw the deceased in injured condition and his head was bandaged. It is also submitted that the death of the deceased was never caused due to any assault made by the appellant. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. It is also submitted that maximum the present case may be termed as an accidental incident and the appellant had absolutely no knowledge or intention behind the alleged incident. It is also submitted that if the appellant had any motive to do away with the deceased, he could easily run away from the place of occurrence and would never return to the place of occurrence alongwith the deceased. It is also submitted that the appellant is having no criminal antecedents to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 30.11.2024 and as such he is entitled for bail and his appeal deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the present appeal and it has been submitted that the medical evidence in this case completely corroborates the prosecution version and the doctor has found serious head injury to the deceased. It is also submitted that the cause of death in the postmortem report has been found as due to cranio cerebral damage consequent to blunt force impact to the head. All the injuries are ante-mortem in nature. It is also submitted that since no one was present in the room except the deceased and the appellant, it was only the appellant who caused injuries following by the death of the deceased. It is also submitted that the appellant very well knew that the deceased belonged to a marginal section of the society and was a member of S.C./S.T. Community. It is also submitted that the Investigating Officer of the case has collected ample evidence against the appellant and that is why charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 and taking into consideration the fact that the first aid to the injured Ajay Kumar was provided by the appellant himself after taking him to the doctor and bandaging over the wound and further taking into account the fact that there was no previous animosity between the two and the appellant had no intention or knowledge to commit the crime, prima facie it appears to be an accidental incident, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. and that there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the appellant has no criminal antecedents, 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.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is set-aside.

9. Let the appellant Arun Kumar involved in Case Crime No.504 of 2024, under Section 105 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Phase-I, District Gautam Budh Nagar 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.

10. 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 :- 7.7.2025