High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. None appears on behalf of the informant / opposite party no.2 even in the revised call.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on 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 - Vimal Pal alias Chhote Pal with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 14.2.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Auraiya in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.246 of 2025 and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.589 of 2024 under Sections 352, 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Auraiya, District - Auraiya.

4. The prosecution story, as culled out in the F.I.R., is that on 31.10.2024 at about 10:40 P.M. when Sudhir Kumar, the younger brother of the informant, objected the accused persons, who were causing nuisance and hurling abuses by caste related remarks, the associates of main accused Anil Pal caught hold of Sudhir Kumar and a fire was made by accused Anil Pal with country made pistol which inflicted in the chest of Sudhir Kumar resulting into his instantaneous death.

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 further submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. The present appellant had absolutely no motive to commit the crime. The main role of firing upon the deceased has not been assigned to the present appellant rather it is assigned to main accused Anil Pal. It is also submitted that the murder weapon, the country made pistol, has also been retrieved on the pointing out of Anil Pal and not of the present appellant. The alleged eyewitnesses of this case also do not assign any specific role of firing to the present appellant. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the S.C./S.T. Act are not established in this matter, therefore no case under the S.C./S.T. Act is made out against the applicant. It is also submitted that if the prosecution story is taken to be as a true story, there was no premeditation of mind and no common object of all the accused persons to do away with the deceased rather it was a case of sudden and grave provocation. It is also 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 co-accused Lalla Babu Sharma, having similar role, has been granted bail by this Court by allowing his Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 2025 vide order dated 11.3.2025. The case of the present appellant is not distinguishable to that of co-accused who has been enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 2.11.2024 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.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the appeal but could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the role assigned to the present appellant is only of catching hold the deceased and he is not the principal offender of the offence.

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. 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. 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.

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

10. Let the appellant - Vimal Pal alias Chhote Pal involved in Case Crime No.589 of 2024 under Sections 352, 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Auraiya, District - Auraiya, 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.

11. 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 :- 13.5.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. None appears on behalf of the informant / opposite party no.2 even in the revised call.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on 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 - Vimal Pal alias Chhote Pal with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 14.2.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Auraiya in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.246 of 2025 and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.589 of 2024 under Sections 352, 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Auraiya, District - Auraiya.

4. The prosecution story, as culled out in the F.I.R., is that on 31.10.2024 at about 10:40 P.M. when Sudhir Kumar, the younger brother of the informant, objected the accused persons, who were causing nuisance and hurling abuses by caste related remarks, the associates of main accused Anil Pal caught hold of Sudhir Kumar and a fire was made by accused Anil Pal with country made pistol which inflicted in the chest of Sudhir Kumar resulting into his instantaneous death.

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 further submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. The present appellant had absolutely no motive to commit the crime. The main role of firing upon the deceased has not been assigned to the present appellant rather it is assigned to main accused Anil Pal. It is also submitted that the murder weapon, the country made pistol, has also been retrieved on the pointing out of Anil Pal and not of the present appellant. The alleged eyewitnesses of this case also do not assign any specific role of firing to the present appellant. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the S.C./S.T. Act are not established in this matter, therefore no case under the S.C./S.T. Act is made out against the applicant. It is also submitted that if the prosecution story is taken to be as a true story, there was no premeditation of mind and no common object of all the accused persons to do away with the deceased rather it was a case of sudden and grave provocation. It is also 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 co-accused Lalla Babu Sharma, having similar role, has been granted bail by this Court by allowing his Criminal Appeal No. 153 of 2025 vide order dated 11.3.2025. The case of the present appellant is not distinguishable to that of co-accused who has been enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 2.11.2024 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.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA opposed the appeal but could not dispute this factual aspect of the matter that the role assigned to the present appellant is only of catching hold the deceased and he is not the principal offender of the offence.

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. 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. 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.

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

10. Let the appellant - Vimal Pal alias Chhote Pal involved in Case Crime No.589 of 2024 under Sections 352, 103(1), 3(5) B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Auraiya, District - Auraiya, 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.

11. 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 :- 13.5.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad