High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Shyam Bihari with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 9.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Maharajganj in Bail Application No. 1449 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 288 of 2024 under Sections 105, 110, 115 (2),352, 351 (3) and 3(5) of B.N.S. & Section 3 (1) dha and 3(2)5 Ka SC/ST Act, Police Station - Purandarpur, District- Maharajganj.

3. The prosecution case as unfolded in the FIR is that on 30.10.2024 at about 10.00 pm the three named accused persons including the present appellant made an assault upon Mahendra, the son of the informant, with lathi and danda and also hurled abuses with caste related remarks and he sustained injuries. The injured was sent to the hospital and FIR was lodged and on the next day due to the ante-mortem injuries the injured died.

4. 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. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that the real facts of the case are that since the deceased was in a drunken condition he was out of control and his death was caused accidentally by falling. It is further submitted that as per prosecution case three accused persons made assault upon the deceased simultaneously with lathi, danda, kicking and fisting but in the post mortem report only one contused swelling on the left side of head has been found and no other ante mortem injury has been found over the body, which shows the falsity of the prosecution case. It is also submitted that no specific role has been assigned to any of the accused persons including the present appellant. It is further submitted that story of recovery of murder weapon danda on the pointing out of the present appellant is a false and frivolous story. It is further submitted that the whole prosecution story is false and fabricated. 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 6.11.2024 having no criminal history to his credit. 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.

5. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 9.12.2024. It is further submitted that the case is based on eyewitness account and eyewitness Meera has corroborated the FIR version when she was interrogated by the I.O. during her evidence under Section 180 BNSS. It is further submitted that the murder weapon has been recovered on the pointing out of the present appellant. It is further submitted that in the post mortem report cause of death has been found ante mortem injuries caused to the deceased but however they could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that only one injury has been found as ante mortem injury on the body of the deceased whereas as per FIR all the three named accused persons simultaneously made assault upon the deceased.

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, 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 to be allowed.

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

9. Let the above named appellant involved in the aforesaid crime 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. 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 :- 29.4.2025 Fhd FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Shyam Bihari with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 9.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Court, Maharajganj in Bail Application No. 1449 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 288 of 2024 under Sections 105, 110, 115 (2),352, 351 (3) and 3(5) of B.N.S. & Section 3 (1) dha and 3(2)5 Ka SC/ST Act, Police Station - Purandarpur, District- Maharajganj.

3. The prosecution case as unfolded in the FIR is that on 30.10.2024 at about 10.00 pm the three named accused persons including the present appellant made an assault upon Mahendra, the son of the informant, with lathi and danda and also hurled abuses with caste related remarks and he sustained injuries. The injured was sent to the hospital and FIR was lodged and on the next day due to the ante-mortem injuries the injured died.

4. 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. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that the real facts of the case are that since the deceased was in a drunken condition he was out of control and his death was caused accidentally by falling. It is further submitted that as per prosecution case three accused persons made assault upon the deceased simultaneously with lathi, danda, kicking and fisting but in the post mortem report only one contused swelling on the left side of head has been found and no other ante mortem injury has been found over the body, which shows the falsity of the prosecution case. It is also submitted that no specific role has been assigned to any of the accused persons including the present appellant. It is further submitted that story of recovery of murder weapon danda on the pointing out of the present appellant is a false and frivolous story. It is further submitted that the whole prosecution story is false and fabricated. 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 6.11.2024 having no criminal history to his credit. 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.

5. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 9.12.2024. It is further submitted that the case is based on eyewitness account and eyewitness Meera has corroborated the FIR version when she was interrogated by the I.O. during her evidence under Section 180 BNSS. It is further submitted that the murder weapon has been recovered on the pointing out of the present appellant. It is further submitted that in the post mortem report cause of death has been found ante mortem injuries caused to the deceased but however they could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that only one injury has been found as ante mortem injury on the body of the deceased whereas as per FIR all the three named accused persons simultaneously made assault upon the deceased.

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, 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 to be allowed.

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

9. Let the above named appellant involved in the aforesaid crime 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. 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 :- 29.4.2025 Fhd FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad