High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Since these criminal appeals arise out of same case crime number, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.

2. These criminal appeals under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been preferred by the appellants Aadil Mistri, Farukh and Shahrukh with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection orders dated 10.10.2024 and 19.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad and release the appellants on bail in Case Crime No. 301 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, P.S. Tronica City, District Ghaziabad.

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

4. The factual matrix of this matter, as disclosed in the F.I.R. of the case which was lodged on 27.6.2024 by the informant Ravi against the named accused persons Farukh, Shahrukh and Adil Mistri, is that on 21.6.2024 Farukh driver and his brother Shahrukh came to his house in the Wagon-R Car No. UP14FT 0341 and took away his father to go to mechanic Adil at about 10.30 a.m. but he did not return for long and call was made by the informant to his father, which was picked up by accused Farukh, who was sitting alongwith co-accused Shahrukh and Adil Mistri. When the informant went to the house of Farukh in the night they told that his father left near Pooja Colony tomorrow at about 1.30 in the afternoon and subsequently on the next day when he again went to the house of Farukh it was locked and phone was switched off. On 22.6.2024 a missing report was registered at P.S. Tronica City. On 26.6.2024 on information regarding some unknown dead body in the mortuary at Sonipat, the informant identified the same as of his father. Named F.I.R. was lodged against accused Farukh, Shahrukh and Adil Mistri and after investigation charge sheet has been submitted.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. It is also submitted that this is a case of no evidence. There is no eye witness of the occurrence. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is highly suspicious because when it is mentioned in the F.I.R. that the accused Shahrukh and Farukh took away the deceased from his house on 21.6.2024 why on the next day a missing report was lodged by the informant without naming the present appellants. It is further submitted that even if it is supposed that the accused appellants took away the deceased with them on 21.6.2024 and the dead body of the deceased was found on 26.6.2024 after about five days, the prosecution was under obligation to prove that the deceased remained in the company of the appellants during the aforesaid period of five days. The appellants had absolutely no motive to commit the crime. Since it is a case based on circumstantial evidence, it was necessary for the prosecution to show the motive of the case. It is also submitted that in the post mortem of the dead body the Medical Officer has not found any serious or grievous injury in the internal or external part of the body of the deceased. It is further submitted that the CDR collected by the I.O. also reveals that the accused appellants were never present at the place of the occurrence. No incriminating evidence / article has been recovered from the possession of the appellants. The appellants have no criminal history to their credit. It is also submitted that entire prosecution case is based upon the alleged confessional statement of the accused persons made in the custody of the police, which has no evidentiary value at all. It is also submitted that all the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. It is further submitted that albeit the informant in his statement given to the police has narrated that prior to the alleged incident an altercation had taken place between the present appellants and his father and they had hurled abuses by caste related remarks to him but the informant has failed to disclose any date, time and place of the said altercation. The appellant Adil Mistri is in jail since 8.7.2024 whereas the appellants Farukh and Shahrukh are in jail since 27.6.2024. The Court concerned while passing the impugned orders 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 orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellants suffer from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for grant of bail submitted that the appellants committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to SC/ST community. It is also submitted that although this case is based upon circumstantial evidence but last seen together evidence is available against the appellants which was alleged in the F.I.R. as well and corroborated by the evidence of the informant. It is also submitted that the CDR which was collected by the I.O. during investigation clearly reflects that the appellants were present on the site at the time of the occurrence. The offence is very serious. The appellants have committed the murder of the father of the informant. Cogent and reliable evidence has been collected by the I.O. against the appellants during investigation. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders and appeals deserve 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. 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 fact that the case is based on circumstantial evidence but except last seen evidence no other evidence is available against the appellants and also the gap between the recovery of the dead body and last seen together which is very long and the possibility of leaving the appellants during this period by the deceased cannot be ruled out, evidence of CDR collected by the I.O. is not clear and cogent evidence for the presence of the appellants at the location of the recovery of the dead body, clean criminal record of the appellants, weak type of motive and the lack of evidence of the fact that the deceased remained in the company of the accused appellants for a period of about five days i.e. from 21.6.2024 to 26.6.2024, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail applications of the appellants. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same are liable to be set-aside and the appeals are liable to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellants are set-aside.

10. Let the aforesaid appellants involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing each 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 appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii). The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii). The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv). The appellants 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 appellants 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 :- 22.7.2025 MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Since these criminal appeals arise out of same case crime number, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.

2. These criminal appeals under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been preferred by the appellants Aadil Mistri, Farukh and Shahrukh with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection orders dated 10.10.2024 and 19.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/ Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad and release the appellants on bail in Case Crime No. 301 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, P.S. Tronica City, District Ghaziabad.

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

4. The factual matrix of this matter, as disclosed in the F.I.R. of the case which was lodged on 27.6.2024 by the informant Ravi against the named accused persons Farukh, Shahrukh and Adil Mistri, is that on 21.6.2024 Farukh driver and his brother Shahrukh came to his house in the Wagon-R Car No. UP14FT 0341 and took away his father to go to mechanic Adil at about 10.30 a.m. but he did not return for long and call was made by the informant to his father, which was picked up by accused Farukh, who was sitting alongwith co-accused Shahrukh and Adil Mistri. When the informant went to the house of Farukh in the night they told that his father left near Pooja Colony tomorrow at about 1.30 in the afternoon and subsequently on the next day when he again went to the house of Farukh it was locked and phone was switched off. On 22.6.2024 a missing report was registered at P.S. Tronica City. On 26.6.2024 on information regarding some unknown dead body in the mortuary at Sonipat, the informant identified the same as of his father. Named F.I.R. was lodged against accused Farukh, Shahrukh and Adil Mistri and after investigation charge sheet has been submitted.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. It is also submitted that this is a case of no evidence. There is no eye witness of the occurrence. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is highly suspicious because when it is mentioned in the F.I.R. that the accused Shahrukh and Farukh took away the deceased from his house on 21.6.2024 why on the next day a missing report was lodged by the informant without naming the present appellants. It is further submitted that even if it is supposed that the accused appellants took away the deceased with them on 21.6.2024 and the dead body of the deceased was found on 26.6.2024 after about five days, the prosecution was under obligation to prove that the deceased remained in the company of the appellants during the aforesaid period of five days. The appellants had absolutely no motive to commit the crime. Since it is a case based on circumstantial evidence, it was necessary for the prosecution to show the motive of the case. It is also submitted that in the post mortem of the dead body the Medical Officer has not found any serious or grievous injury in the internal or external part of the body of the deceased. It is further submitted that the CDR collected by the I.O. also reveals that the accused appellants were never present at the place of the occurrence. No incriminating evidence / article has been recovered from the possession of the appellants. The appellants have no criminal history to their credit. It is also submitted that entire prosecution case is based upon the alleged confessional statement of the accused persons made in the custody of the police, which has no evidentiary value at all. It is also submitted that all the essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. It is further submitted that albeit the informant in his statement given to the police has narrated that prior to the alleged incident an altercation had taken place between the present appellants and his father and they had hurled abuses by caste related remarks to him but the informant has failed to disclose any date, time and place of the said altercation. The appellant Adil Mistri is in jail since 8.7.2024 whereas the appellants Farukh and Shahrukh are in jail since 27.6.2024. The Court concerned while passing the impugned orders 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 orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellants suffer from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for grant of bail submitted that the appellants committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to SC/ST community. It is also submitted that although this case is based upon circumstantial evidence but last seen together evidence is available against the appellants which was alleged in the F.I.R. as well and corroborated by the evidence of the informant. It is also submitted that the CDR which was collected by the I.O. during investigation clearly reflects that the appellants were present on the site at the time of the occurrence. The offence is very serious. The appellants have committed the murder of the father of the informant. Cogent and reliable evidence has been collected by the I.O. against the appellants during investigation. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders and appeals deserve 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. 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 fact that the case is based on circumstantial evidence but except last seen evidence no other evidence is available against the appellants and also the gap between the recovery of the dead body and last seen together which is very long and the possibility of leaving the appellants during this period by the deceased cannot be ruled out, evidence of CDR collected by the I.O. is not clear and cogent evidence for the presence of the appellants at the location of the recovery of the dead body, clean criminal record of the appellants, weak type of motive and the lack of evidence of the fact that the deceased remained in the company of the accused appellants for a period of about five days i.e. from 21.6.2024 to 26.6.2024, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail applications of the appellants. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same are liable to be set-aside and the appeals are liable to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellants are set-aside.

10. Let the aforesaid appellants involved in aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing each 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 appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii). The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii). The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv). The appellants 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 appellants 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 :- 22.7.2025 MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad