High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. In the revised list, none appears on behalf of respondent no.2 although names of the counsel are printed in the list.

2. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Ashish Kumar with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.1.2025 passed by Addl. District & Session Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.504 of 2024 under Sections 109, 115 (2), 118 (1), 191 (2), 351 (3), 352 BNS and Section 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Rasulabad, District Kanpur Dehat.

4. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that on 6.12.2024 at about 3:00 p.m., the present appellant came to the petrol pump of Munesh Kumar where his employee Chandan was present and an altercation took place between both the sides and the present appellant hurled abuses to the informant by caste related remarks, as he belongs to SC/ST community, and went away but after some time he again came back with his four associates carrying lathi, danda and kulhari in their hands and they started assaulting the said employee Chandan and the present appellant made a serious blow by kulhari upon the informant. When one Brij Naresh Singh came to rescue, he was also assaulted, who received serious injuries in his head. There injured persons were medically examined and F.I.R. was lodged.

5. 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 the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. It is also submitted that as per prosecution case, two persons sustained injuries in the alleged incident. The injuries sustained by the injured Brij Naresh Singh, as per medical report, were found simple in nature and even after the doctor's advise he did not appear before the I.O. for performing his X-ray or CT scan. In the same manner, injured Munesh Kumar also sustained simple injuries. His injury no.3 was kept under observation and injury no.1, which was caused by some sharp object, are also not serious injuries and the said injured Munesh Kumar also did not appear before the I.O. for performing his X-ray and CT scan and the doctor nowhere states that the injuries sustained by Munesh Kumar are serious or grievous in nature. It is also submitted that there is also a cross case of the matter and the appellant's side also sustained injury but the same has not been explained by the prosecution at any stage. It is also submitted that there is no independent witness of the occurrence.

6. It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Kanpur Dehat. 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 also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 7.12.2024 having no criminal antecedents 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.

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal but however he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that there is no supplementary report on record and no X-ray or CT scan of both the injured persons was performed as they did not appear before the I.O. for performing the same.

8. 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.

9. 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 the fact that no such injury has been caused to both the injured persons which may be fatal to life, 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.

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

11. Let the appellant Ashish Kumar involved in case crime no.504 of 2024 under Sections 109, 115 (2), 118 (1), 191 (2), 351 (3), 352 BNS and Section 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Rasulabad, District Kanpur Dehat, 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 :- 16.7.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. In the revised list, none appears on behalf of respondent no.2 although names of the counsel are printed in the list.

2. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Ashish Kumar with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.1.2025 passed by Addl. District & Session Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.504 of 2024 under Sections 109, 115 (2), 118 (1), 191 (2), 351 (3), 352 BNS and Section 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Rasulabad, District Kanpur Dehat.

4. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that on 6.12.2024 at about 3:00 p.m., the present appellant came to the petrol pump of Munesh Kumar where his employee Chandan was present and an altercation took place between both the sides and the present appellant hurled abuses to the informant by caste related remarks, as he belongs to SC/ST community, and went away but after some time he again came back with his four associates carrying lathi, danda and kulhari in their hands and they started assaulting the said employee Chandan and the present appellant made a serious blow by kulhari upon the informant. When one Brij Naresh Singh came to rescue, he was also assaulted, who received serious injuries in his head. There injured persons were medically examined and F.I.R. was lodged.

5. 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 the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. It is also submitted that as per prosecution case, two persons sustained injuries in the alleged incident. The injuries sustained by the injured Brij Naresh Singh, as per medical report, were found simple in nature and even after the doctor's advise he did not appear before the I.O. for performing his X-ray or CT scan. In the same manner, injured Munesh Kumar also sustained simple injuries. His injury no.3 was kept under observation and injury no.1, which was caused by some sharp object, are also not serious injuries and the said injured Munesh Kumar also did not appear before the I.O. for performing his X-ray and CT scan and the doctor nowhere states that the injuries sustained by Munesh Kumar are serious or grievous in nature. It is also submitted that there is also a cross case of the matter and the appellant's side also sustained injury but the same has not been explained by the prosecution at any stage. It is also submitted that there is no independent witness of the occurrence.

6. It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Kanpur Dehat. 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 also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 7.12.2024 having no criminal antecedents 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.

7. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. opposed the appeal but however he could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that there is no supplementary report on record and no X-ray or CT scan of both the injured persons was performed as they did not appear before the I.O. for performing the same.

8. 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.

9. 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 the fact that no such injury has been caused to both the injured persons which may be fatal to life, 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.

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

11. Let the appellant Ashish Kumar involved in case crime no.504 of 2024 under Sections 109, 115 (2), 118 (1), 191 (2), 351 (3), 352 BNS and Section 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Rasulabad, District Kanpur Dehat, 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 :- 16.7.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad