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 (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant Sudesh Alias Nanhe with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Moradabad and to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 68 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201 IPC and 3 (2)5 SC/ST Act and 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Sonakpur, District- Moradabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record.

3. As per prosecution story, the deceased Anand, the brother-in-law (sala) of the informant left his house on 19.9.2023 in the night for market but did not return till late night and subsequently on 20.9.2023 at about 2.30 pm his dead body was found in a sugar cane field in some other village. FIR was lodged against unknown accused persons and investigation started, now the charge sheet has been submitted.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the present appellant has absolutely no concern with the commission of alleged crime. It is also submitted that the case of prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence but there is no link of events in respect of the present appellant to make a complete chain to hold him guilty for the murder of the deceased. It is also submitted that the name of the present appellant came on surface on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused Mitrapal, who happens to be the brother-in-law (behnoi) of the deceased. It is also submitted that even if there was some property dispute between the Mitrapal and the deceased, the present appellant had absolutely no concern with that nor he was any share holder in the property of the deceased. It is also submitted that the alleged recovery of murder weapon knife has been recovered from an open place is false and concocted story and it was not supported by any reliable independent witness. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 27.9.2023 having no criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that co-accused Gulam, Abrar and Mitrapal have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 28.08.2024, 16.05.2024 and 11.03.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 5008 of 2024, 3749 of 2024 and 3946 of 2024 respectively. The trial Court 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 AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to scheduled caste community. It is further submitted that co-accused Mirtrapal was the master mind of the whole crime and in criminal conspiracy of all the three accused persons the murder of the deceased was caused, who was a young man and belonged to SC/ST community and the murder weapon knife has been retrieved by the police on the pointing out of the present accused appellant. It is further submitted that except confessional statement of co-accused Mitrapal prima facie there is no cogent evidence alleged against the present appellant. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 18.1.2024.

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, prima facie, the contents of SC/ST Act do not make out in this case, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court 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 Sudesh Alias Nanhe involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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 :- 23.5.2025 Rmk. RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA 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 (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant Sudesh Alias Nanhe with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Moradabad and to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 68 of 2023, under Sections 302, 201 IPC and 3 (2)5 SC/ST Act and 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Sonakpur, District- Moradabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record.

3. As per prosecution story, the deceased Anand, the brother-in-law (sala) of the informant left his house on 19.9.2023 in the night for market but did not return till late night and subsequently on 20.9.2023 at about 2.30 pm his dead body was found in a sugar cane field in some other village. FIR was lodged against unknown accused persons and investigation started, now the charge sheet has been submitted.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the present appellant has absolutely no concern with the commission of alleged crime. It is also submitted that the case of prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence but there is no link of events in respect of the present appellant to make a complete chain to hold him guilty for the murder of the deceased. It is also submitted that the name of the present appellant came on surface on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused Mitrapal, who happens to be the brother-in-law (behnoi) of the deceased. It is also submitted that even if there was some property dispute between the Mitrapal and the deceased, the present appellant had absolutely no concern with that nor he was any share holder in the property of the deceased. It is also submitted that the alleged recovery of murder weapon knife has been recovered from an open place is false and concocted story and it was not supported by any reliable independent witness. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 27.9.2023 having no criminal history to his credit. It is also submitted that co-accused Gulam, Abrar and Mitrapal have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 28.08.2024, 16.05.2024 and 11.03.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 5008 of 2024, 3749 of 2024 and 3946 of 2024 respectively. The trial Court 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 AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to scheduled caste community. It is further submitted that co-accused Mirtrapal was the master mind of the whole crime and in criminal conspiracy of all the three accused persons the murder of the deceased was caused, who was a young man and belonged to SC/ST community and the murder weapon knife has been retrieved by the police on the pointing out of the present accused appellant. It is further submitted that except confessional statement of co-accused Mitrapal prima facie there is no cogent evidence alleged against the present appellant. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 18.1.2024.

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, prima facie, the contents of SC/ST Act do not make out in this case, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court 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 Sudesh Alias Nanhe involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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 :- 23.5.2025 Rmk. RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad