High Court · 2025

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the entire record.

3. In brief, the F.I.R. contains the fact that on 15.9.2023 at about 1:00 in the afternoon, on account of some old animosity, the named accused persons Ravi Singh, Dhiraj Singh, Abhishek Singh, Neeraj Singh, Boby Singh, Ayush (Rancho), Bhuli Singh, Rohit Singh, Utasv Singh, Samarth Singh, Abhinav Singh and Rohit Patel with a common object carrying lathi, danda, country made pistols and knives hurled abuses by caste related remarks calling 'chamariya siyariya' and made an assault upon Sudeep Ladoo, the nephew of the informant, who belongs to SC/ST community, with intention to kill and he sustained serious injuries. When Vikas came for rescue, he was also given knife blows and when the injured Sudeep Ladoo tried to run away, accused Ravi Singh and Neeraj Singh made an assault upon him with knife (chhura) resulting into his instantaneous death on spot.

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. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are missing in this matter. It is also submitted that in the F.I.R., it is clearly mentioned that the accused persons were carrying chhura with them and the deceased and the injured both were given blows by chhura but, however, during investigation, a false recovery of knife has been shown by the police on the pointing out of the present appellant, which prima facie shows a major contradiction in the prosecution story and evidence collected during the investigation. It is also submitted that there is no eyewitness of the alleged incident but the prosecution has managed some fake eyewitnesses of the occurrence. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution story. The deceased and injured both are the persons of criminal character having several enemies. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the alleged eyewitnesses as to the role assigned to different accused persons and the appellant as well in the commission of the alleged crime. It is also submitted that the statement of the injured under section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the Investigating Officer by a delay of 26 days without any plausible explanation for the same. It is also submitted that there was no intentional assault on the part of the present appellant upon the deceased and the injured, rather the incident happened in a spur of moment and there was no premeditation to do away with the deceased. It is also submitted that the co-accused Neeraj Singh, who actively participated in the commission of the crime, has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.2.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1255 of 2024. It is also submitted that the whole story of recovery of murder weapon is a false and concocted story of prosecution which is not supported by any independent public witness. It is also submitted that no F.S.L. Report is available on record so far in respect of the knife, which was allegedly used in the commission of crime. It is also submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Ballia. It is further submitted that 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. Appellant is languishing in jail since 16.9.2023 having no criminal antecedents to his credit and as such, he is entitled for bail by allowing the present appeal.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that the deceased, who belongs to SC/ST community, was abused and harassed by caste related remarks by the accused persons at the time of incident. He was having no weapon with him whereas the accused persons were carrying lathi, danda, country made pistols and knives and they hurled caste related abuses such as 'chamariya siyariya' and not even this but they also inflicted injuries to the injured of this case namely, Vikas. It is also submitted that from the perusal of statements of the eyewitnesses of this case and the injured witness as well it is fully proved that Ravi Singh, the present appellant was the person who inflicted knife injuries to both the deceased and the injured and the same has been recovered on his pointing out by the police. It is also submitted that at this stage, there is no possibility of false implication of the appellant. It is also submitted that in the postmortem report, stabbed wounds have been found upon the body of the deceased and the injury report of the injured also stands in support of the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the eyewitnesses Ashish, Subhash and Arun Bharti in their statements corroborate the prosecution version in material terms. The deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries. It is also submitted that the present appellant is not entitled for parity of co-accused Neeraj Singh because he himself has been assigned to give fatal blow to the deceased and also to inflict injuries to the injured Vikas. It is also submitted that since the injured Vikas was seriously injured and had been admitted in the hospital, it caused delay in recording his statement by the Investigating Officer. It is also submitted that the deceased was a member of the weaker section of the Society and belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. The appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to SC/ST community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The appellant is not entitled for any relaxation and his bail application is liable to be rejected and the appeal having no force 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 rival submissions made by the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, complicity of accused and also considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence wherein one person lost his life and another one was seriously injured and there is no possibility of false implication of the appellant at this stage, who prima facie appears to be the principal offender, the Court is of the view that the court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the present criminal appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the entire record.

3. In brief, the F.I.R. contains the fact that on 15.9.2023 at about 1:00 in the afternoon, on account of some old animosity, the named accused persons Ravi Singh, Dhiraj Singh, Abhishek Singh, Neeraj Singh, Boby Singh, Ayush (Rancho), Bhuli Singh, Rohit Singh, Utasv Singh, Samarth Singh, Abhinav Singh and Rohit Patel with a common object carrying lathi, danda, country made pistols and knives hurled abuses by caste related remarks calling 'chamariya siyariya' and made an assault upon Sudeep Ladoo, the nephew of the informant, who belongs to SC/ST community, with intention to kill and he sustained serious injuries. When Vikas came for rescue, he was also given knife blows and when the injured Sudeep Ladoo tried to run away, accused Ravi Singh and Neeraj Singh made an assault upon him with knife (chhura) resulting into his instantaneous death on spot.

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. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are missing in this matter. It is also submitted that in the F.I.R., it is clearly mentioned that the accused persons were carrying chhura with them and the deceased and the injured both were given blows by chhura but, however, during investigation, a false recovery of knife has been shown by the police on the pointing out of the present appellant, which prima facie shows a major contradiction in the prosecution story and evidence collected during the investigation. It is also submitted that there is no eyewitness of the alleged incident but the prosecution has managed some fake eyewitnesses of the occurrence. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution story. The deceased and injured both are the persons of criminal character having several enemies. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the alleged eyewitnesses as to the role assigned to different accused persons and the appellant as well in the commission of the alleged crime. It is also submitted that the statement of the injured under section 161 Cr.P.C. has been recorded by the Investigating Officer by a delay of 26 days without any plausible explanation for the same. It is also submitted that there was no intentional assault on the part of the present appellant upon the deceased and the injured, rather the incident happened in a spur of moment and there was no premeditation to do away with the deceased. It is also submitted that the co-accused Neeraj Singh, who actively participated in the commission of the crime, has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.2.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1255 of 2024. It is also submitted that the whole story of recovery of murder weapon is a false and concocted story of prosecution which is not supported by any independent public witness. It is also submitted that no F.S.L. Report is available on record so far in respect of the knife, which was allegedly used in the commission of crime. It is also submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Ballia. It is further submitted that 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. Appellant is languishing in jail since 16.9.2023 having no criminal antecedents to his credit and as such, he is entitled for bail by allowing the present appeal.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that the deceased, who belongs to SC/ST community, was abused and harassed by caste related remarks by the accused persons at the time of incident. He was having no weapon with him whereas the accused persons were carrying lathi, danda, country made pistols and knives and they hurled caste related abuses such as 'chamariya siyariya' and not even this but they also inflicted injuries to the injured of this case namely, Vikas. It is also submitted that from the perusal of statements of the eyewitnesses of this case and the injured witness as well it is fully proved that Ravi Singh, the present appellant was the person who inflicted knife injuries to both the deceased and the injured and the same has been recovered on his pointing out by the police. It is also submitted that at this stage, there is no possibility of false implication of the appellant. It is also submitted that in the postmortem report, stabbed wounds have been found upon the body of the deceased and the injury report of the injured also stands in support of the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the eyewitnesses Ashish, Subhash and Arun Bharti in their statements corroborate the prosecution version in material terms. The deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of antemortem injuries. It is also submitted that the present appellant is not entitled for parity of co-accused Neeraj Singh because he himself has been assigned to give fatal blow to the deceased and also to inflict injuries to the injured Vikas. It is also submitted that since the injured Vikas was seriously injured and had been admitted in the hospital, it caused delay in recording his statement by the Investigating Officer. It is also submitted that the deceased was a member of the weaker section of the Society and belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. The appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to SC/ST community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The appellant is not entitled for any relaxation and his bail application is liable to be rejected and the appeal having no force 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 rival submissions made by the parties and keeping in view the nature of the offence, complicity of accused and also considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence wherein one person lost his life and another one was seriously injured and there is no possibility of false implication of the appellant at this stage, who prima facie appears to be the principal offender, the Court is of the view that the court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the present criminal appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad