High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:128542 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1301 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
Appellant :- Bittu Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Ambleshwar Pandey,Anuj Srivastava,Devaang Savla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Vijay Pratap Singh Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today annexing the copy of the charge-sheet is taken on record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Bittu with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.1.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Muzaffar Nagar and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.275 of 2024 under Sections 103 (1), 315 B.N.S. and 3 (2) v S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Titavi, District Muzaffarnagar. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant and perused the entire record. 4. Shaukeen, aged about 32 years, son of the informant Kiran Singh left his house on 9.11.2024 at 8:00 A.M. and subsequently on 10.11.2024 in the evening in a Mango orchard in front of Durga Mandir, his dead body was found. He was murdered by some unknown person. Since the informant was busy in the cremation and other rituals of his son, the F.I.R. was lodged on 16.11.2024 under section 103 (1) B.N.S. against unknown person. The Police investigated the matter and now charge-sheet has been submitted against the present appellant only under Sections 103 (1), 315 B.N.S. and 3 (2) v SC/ST Act. 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. The prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is further submitted that the appellant had absolutely no motive to commit the murder of the son of the informant. The entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence and the story of last seen together setup by the prosecution on the basis of CCTV footage is a concocted evidence prepared by the police. It is also submitted that no person has seen the occurrence. It is also submitted that in the postmortem report, cause of death has been found asphyxia as a result of antemortem strangulation and the police again on the basis of false evidence has shown the recovery of towel (अअँगगोछछ) allegedly used in the commission of the crime on the pointing out of the appellant on the basis of his alleged confessional statement made before the police. It is also submitted that in the same manner, the recovery of mobile of the deceased was also shown on the pointing out of the appellant on the basis of his confessional statement and both the recoveries are supported by no independent witness. The alleged recovery is not admissible under the provision of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is also submitted that the alleged eyewitness Prakash of last seen together is not a reliable witness at all and only to falsely implicate the present appellant, the police has managed false witnesses of last seen together evidence. The name of the appellant was taken in the additional statement of witnesses implicating the last seen evidence against the present appellant. It is also submitted that that all the recoveries have been shown from a public and open place and as such not reliance at all. It is also submitted that the appellant has not criminal antecedents to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 22.11.2024. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the present appeal and it has been vehemently argued that although it is a case based on circumstantial evidence but sufficient evidence has been collected by the I.O. against the present accused appellant. In the CCTV footage, the present appellant was seen with the deceased and just after the incident, he fled away from the village. It is also submitted that there are two eyewitnesses of the last seen together namely, Prakash and Ishwar, who had seen the deceased in the company of the appellant on 9.11.2024 both taking wine together and prior to the incident, they were also seen together by the aforesaid witnesses. Witness Prakash has made specific statement that in an inebriated condition the appellant was hurling abuses with caste related remarks to the appellant and he had seen them together on 9.11.2024 at about 7:00 in the evening and the murder of the deceased took place on the same day in the night. It is also submitted that in the postmortem report, the cause of death has been found asphyxia as a result of antemortem strangulation and it a pertinent fact that several injuries have also been found on the body of the deceased as mentioned in the postmortem report. It is also submitted that the towel (अअँगगोछछ) by the use of which the deceased was strangulated and the mobile of the deceased were also retrieved on the pointing out of the accused appellant. It is also submitted that the motive behind the murder was to grab the money of the deceased by the appellant but however after his murder, the appellant found only Rs.400/- with the deceased. It is also submitted that there is no possibility of false implication of the appellant in this matter. After collecting ample and sufficient evidence against the appellant, the I.O. of this case has submitted charge-sheet in this matter against him. It is also submitted that the last seen evidence corroborated with the CCTV footage and oral / ocular evidence reflects the fact that the present accused appellant was the author of the crime.It is a case of murder of a young son of the informant who belongs to weaker section of the Society and was a member of the S.C./S.T. community. The appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is also submitted that the ample evidence was collected by the I.O. against the present accused appellant as well and his active participation in the commission of the crime has been come into light on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation. The appellant is not entitled for any relaxation and his bail application is liable to be rejected and the appeal is liable 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. After considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the evidence available on record and also considering the fact that the appellant had a motive to commit the crime and last seen together evidence and other incriminating circumstances are also available against him and also the fact that the appellant was very well aware that the deceased belonged to the marginal section of the society and he was a member of the SC/ST community, the Court is of the view that no case is made out to release the appellant on bail. 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. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the present criminal appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad