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 - Rajendra Singh Patel with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.1.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kaushambi and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.174 of 2024 under Sections 123/105 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Mahewaghat, District Kaushambi.

2. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sheshadri Trivedi and Sri Jainendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Nitesh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Sanjay Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the entire record.

3. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 20.9.2024 at 6:00 P.M., the present appellant called the deceased Rakam Lal, the husband of the informant, to his house and there some suspicious substance was administered to him which caused deterioration in his condition and then the appellant informed the wife of the deceased and his family members arrived and he was taken to hospital where the deceased told them that some suspicious substance was administered to him by the present appellant and ultimately he died.

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. The prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to establish the offence under the SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. F.I.R. of this case has been lodged very belatedly without any plausible explanation for the delay. It is also submitted that there is no evidence on record that the deceased was called by the appellant to his house and he actually reached the house of the appellant. It is also submitted that the deceased was a drunkard person and on the fateful day, he had taken liquor which might be poisonous and caused his death. It is also submitted that the deceased was not found in the house of the appellant when his family members reached there. It is also submitted that at this stage, there is no plausible explanation to this effect on part of the prosecution that if the appellant intended to cause death of the deceased, why he gave information regarding the bad condition of the deceased to his wife. It is also submitted that the servant of the informant namely, Rajesh s/o Hari Lal had some enmity with the deceased and the death of the deceased may be a result of any conspiracy of his enemies. It is also submitted that if the appellant had any intention or motive to cause death of the deceased, it was not natural at all that he would have sent the information of deteriorating condition of the deceased to his wife. It is also submitted that the there is no eyewitness of the occurrence. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit. He is languishing in jail since 17.12.2024 and is entitled for bail by allowing the present appeal. 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), Kaushambi. 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.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that there is cogent evidence on record that the deceased was called by the accused appellant to his house on the same day where some poisonous substance was administered to him by the appellant and in order to take himself out of suspicion, the appellant informed the wife of the deceased regarding his worsening condition. It is also submitted that there is also evidence on record that the family members of the deceased reached on spot and the deceased disclosed before them that some poisonous substance was given to him by the appellant and the same statement was given by him in the hospital as well. It is also submitted that there is no possibility of false implication of the appellant in this case.

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 and also taking into account the fact that prima facie there is no cogent evidence that the deceased actually reached the house of the appellant on the fateful day; that there is no dying declaration of the deceased on record and there is no witness of this fact so far that any poisonous substance was administered to the deceased by the appellant, 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 - Rajendra Singh Patel involved in Case Crime No.174 of 2024 under Sections 123/105 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Mahewaghat, District Kaushambi 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 :- 25.4.2025 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 - Rajendra Singh Patel with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.1.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kaushambi and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No.174 of 2024 under Sections 123/105 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Mahewaghat, District Kaushambi.

2. Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sheshadri Trivedi and Sri Jainendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Nitesh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Sanjay Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the entire record.

3. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 20.9.2024 at 6:00 P.M., the present appellant called the deceased Rakam Lal, the husband of the informant, to his house and there some suspicious substance was administered to him which caused deterioration in his condition and then the appellant informed the wife of the deceased and his family members arrived and he was taken to hospital where the deceased told them that some suspicious substance was administered to him by the present appellant and ultimately he died.

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. The prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that essential ingredients to establish the offence under the SC/ST Act are completely missing in this case. F.I.R. of this case has been lodged very belatedly without any plausible explanation for the delay. It is also submitted that there is no evidence on record that the deceased was called by the appellant to his house and he actually reached the house of the appellant. It is also submitted that the deceased was a drunkard person and on the fateful day, he had taken liquor which might be poisonous and caused his death. It is also submitted that the deceased was not found in the house of the appellant when his family members reached there. It is also submitted that at this stage, there is no plausible explanation to this effect on part of the prosecution that if the appellant intended to cause death of the deceased, why he gave information regarding the bad condition of the deceased to his wife. It is also submitted that the servant of the informant namely, Rajesh s/o Hari Lal had some enmity with the deceased and the death of the deceased may be a result of any conspiracy of his enemies. It is also submitted that if the appellant had any intention or motive to cause death of the deceased, it was not natural at all that he would have sent the information of deteriorating condition of the deceased to his wife. It is also submitted that the there is no eyewitness of the occurrence. It is also submitted that the appellant has no criminal history to his credit. He is languishing in jail since 17.12.2024 and is entitled for bail by allowing the present appeal. 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), Kaushambi. 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.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that there is cogent evidence on record that the deceased was called by the accused appellant to his house on the same day where some poisonous substance was administered to him by the appellant and in order to take himself out of suspicion, the appellant informed the wife of the deceased regarding his worsening condition. It is also submitted that there is also evidence on record that the family members of the deceased reached on spot and the deceased disclosed before them that some poisonous substance was given to him by the appellant and the same statement was given by him in the hospital as well. It is also submitted that there is no possibility of false implication of the appellant in this case.

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 and also taking into account the fact that prima facie there is no cogent evidence that the deceased actually reached the house of the appellant on the fateful day; that there is no dying declaration of the deceased on record and there is no witness of this fact so far that any poisonous substance was administered to the deceased by the appellant, 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 - Rajendra Singh Patel involved in Case Crime No.174 of 2024 under Sections 123/105 B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Mahewaghat, District Kaushambi 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 :- 25.4.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad