High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Hareesh alias Harendra Pal with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 7.1.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mathura and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.666 of 2024 under Sections 103 (1), 191 (2), 190 B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Goverdhan, District Mathura.

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. The prosecution has come forward with a case that Smt. Kamla @ Kallo, the wife of the informant Sookharam was a labourer. On 22.12.2024, accused Rajveer and Vikram took the said Kamla @ Kallo with them for some labour work and when she did not come back till evening, Bhodev, the brother-in-law of the informant, made a query from the accused persons Rajveer, Vikram and Hareesh but they told that after doing labour work, Kamla had already gone from their place. On the next day i.e. on 23.12.2024, the dead body of the wife of the informant was found in the field near village Mahrauli. A named F.I.R. was lodged against accused Rajveer, Vikram, Murari Thakur, Hareesh and Mallua and after investigation, now charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion. 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 not established in this matter. It is also submitted that the deceased was having some dispute with her husband and she was ousted from her matrimonial house one year before the occurrence and since then she was living with her father. On 22.12.2024, Dr. Jagdish and other persons of the village had seen the deceased while going towards forest at about 5:45 P.M. and on their query, the deceased told that her husband had called her. on 23.12.2024, the police interrogated Vikram and Rajveer and arrested them, however, subsequently the police released the named accused Vikram and Rajveer and the present appellant was falsely roped in this case. It is also submitted that there is no eyewitness of the alleged occurrence and no incriminating article or weapon has been retrieved by the police from the possession of the present appellant or on his pointing out. The mobile phone of the appellant was taken into possession by the police but there is no CDR collected by the I.O. relating to the said mobile phone. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged belatedly. There is no sufficient evidence on record or collected by the I.O. to connect the appellant with the alleged crime of murder. It is also submitted that no witness of this case supports the prosecution case and F.I.R. has been lodged merely on the basis of suspicion by the informant, the husband of the deceased. Although some statements have been given by Bhudev and Ram Chandra, the brothers of the deceased, but they too failed to connect the present appellant with the alleged offence of murder. It is also submitted that Kapoor Chand, the alleged witness of the occurrence, states in his statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. that he had seen the present appellant going towards Sookha Ki Burji and on the next day, the dead body of the deceased was retrieved, however the said witness is also a witness of inquest but at the time of inquest proceedings he never disclosed the aforesaid fact to the police. It is also submitted that the CCTV footage collected by the I.O. also shows that at the approximate time of incident, the deceased was seen going towards the place of occurrence all alone and no suspicious person was seen over the said place. No motive to commit the alleged crime has been assigned to the present appellant. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 23.12.2024 in this matter. He is having no criminal antecedents to his credit. Only on the basis of suspicion, the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and the police in an arbitrary manner expunged the name of accused Rajveer and Vikram, who were named accused persons and Murari Thakur from this matter and the charge-sheet has been submitted only against the present appellant without any cogent and reliable evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that after collecting reliable and sufficient evidence against the appellant, the police had submitted charge-sheet against him in this matter. The accused appellant was seen by the witnesses going towards the place of occurrence in the evening and on the next day, the dead body of the deceased was found at the aforesaid place of occurrence.

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 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 Hareesh alias Harendra Pal involved in case crime no.666 of 2024 under Sections 103 (1), 191 (2), 190 B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Goverdhan, District Mathura 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 :- 4.7.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Hareesh alias Harendra Pal with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 7.1.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mathura and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.666 of 2024 under Sections 103 (1), 191 (2), 190 B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Goverdhan, District Mathura.

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. The prosecution has come forward with a case that Smt. Kamla @ Kallo, the wife of the informant Sookharam was a labourer. On 22.12.2024, accused Rajveer and Vikram took the said Kamla @ Kallo with them for some labour work and when she did not come back till evening, Bhodev, the brother-in-law of the informant, made a query from the accused persons Rajveer, Vikram and Hareesh but they told that after doing labour work, Kamla had already gone from their place. On the next day i.e. on 23.12.2024, the dead body of the wife of the informant was found in the field near village Mahrauli. A named F.I.R. was lodged against accused Rajveer, Vikram, Murari Thakur, Hareesh and Mallua and after investigation, now charge-sheet has been submitted in this matter.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion. 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 not established in this matter. It is also submitted that the deceased was having some dispute with her husband and she was ousted from her matrimonial house one year before the occurrence and since then she was living with her father. On 22.12.2024, Dr. Jagdish and other persons of the village had seen the deceased while going towards forest at about 5:45 P.M. and on their query, the deceased told that her husband had called her. on 23.12.2024, the police interrogated Vikram and Rajveer and arrested them, however, subsequently the police released the named accused Vikram and Rajveer and the present appellant was falsely roped in this case. It is also submitted that there is no eyewitness of the alleged occurrence and no incriminating article or weapon has been retrieved by the police from the possession of the present appellant or on his pointing out. The mobile phone of the appellant was taken into possession by the police but there is no CDR collected by the I.O. relating to the said mobile phone. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. has been lodged belatedly. There is no sufficient evidence on record or collected by the I.O. to connect the appellant with the alleged crime of murder. It is also submitted that no witness of this case supports the prosecution case and F.I.R. has been lodged merely on the basis of suspicion by the informant, the husband of the deceased. Although some statements have been given by Bhudev and Ram Chandra, the brothers of the deceased, but they too failed to connect the present appellant with the alleged offence of murder. It is also submitted that Kapoor Chand, the alleged witness of the occurrence, states in his statement under Section 180 B.N.S.S. that he had seen the present appellant going towards Sookha Ki Burji and on the next day, the dead body of the deceased was retrieved, however the said witness is also a witness of inquest but at the time of inquest proceedings he never disclosed the aforesaid fact to the police. It is also submitted that the CCTV footage collected by the I.O. also shows that at the approximate time of incident, the deceased was seen going towards the place of occurrence all alone and no suspicious person was seen over the said place. No motive to commit the alleged crime has been assigned to the present appellant. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 23.12.2024 in this matter. He is having no criminal antecedents to his credit. Only on the basis of suspicion, the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and the police in an arbitrary manner expunged the name of accused Rajveer and Vikram, who were named accused persons and Murari Thakur from this matter and the charge-sheet has been submitted only against the present appellant without any cogent and reliable evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that after collecting reliable and sufficient evidence against the appellant, the police had submitted charge-sheet against him in this matter. The accused appellant was seen by the witnesses going towards the place of occurrence in the evening and on the next day, the dead body of the deceased was found at the aforesaid place of occurrence.

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 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 Hareesh alias Harendra Pal involved in case crime no.666 of 2024 under Sections 103 (1), 191 (2), 190 B.N.S. and Section 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Goverdhan, District Mathura 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 :- 4.7.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad