High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. These criminal appeals under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) have been preferred by the appellants Sripal Yadav, Pawan Yadav, Brijesh Yadav, Batua alias Ravi Yadav, Udaiveer Yadav Alias Udal, Ajay Yadav, Shishupal Yadav alias Shushpal, Satish Yadav, Rohtash Yadav, Lokesh Yadav @ Pintar, Deepu Alias Deepak Yadav, Shubham Yadav Alias Shuvam, Amit and Anil with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection orders dated 10.04.2025 and 01.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mathura and to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 71 of 2025, under Sections 310(2), 311, 74, 324(4), 109, 317(3), 351(2) B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1) & (1)(2) and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Refinery, District Mathura.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the entire record.

3. Before starting the merits of the materials on record, it is desirable to have a glance upon the prosecution story.

4. The marriage of the daughters of the informant Padam Singh was scheduled on 21.02.2025 and when both of his daughters were coming from beauty-parlor on the said date at about 9.30 P.M. alongwith their uncle and aunt Ranjit and Roshani, their vehicle was stopped at the Gaushala in the way by Lokesh, Satish, Shishupal, Rohtash, Ajay, Sripal, Nishant, Udal, Brijesh, Deepu, Shubham, Pawan, Batuwa, Anil and Amit and some unknown persons, who tried to outrage the modesty of his daughters, made an assault upon the brother-in-law of the informant and some rings were also taken by them. When the informant alongwith some other persons reached on the spot, they were threatened by the aforesaid accused persons. The accused persons also hurled abuses by caste related remarks as the informant belongs to SC/ST community. Meanwhile, the accused Satish came by his tractor and caused damage to two vehicles and also attacked upon the brother- in-law of the informant with intention to kill him. The matter was reported to the police and investigation culminated in the charge sheet.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent, they have not committed the alleged offence but they have been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. is delayed without any plausible explanation of the same and it was lodged after consultation and deliberation. It is next submitted that the prosecution story does not find corroboration from the medical evidence. It is also submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the accused appellants except the accused appellant Satish. It is next submitted that the F.I.R. is silent on the point as to whether the accused appellants were carrying any weapon with them. It is next submitted that there is no independent/impartial witness of the occurrence and all the witnesses are family members of the informant.

6. It is further submitted that the injury reports pertaining to the injured persons in this case are suspicious documents. The doctor found no fresh injury to the injured Manisha, daughter of the injured and he has also found only simple injuries on the other injured persons Rani, Padam Singh and Yogendra in their medical examination. It is also submitted that the doctor has found no fresh injury to the injured Rani, another daughter of the informant. It is also submitted that another injured Ranjit has also sustained four injuries and only his injury no. 2 was referred to eye surgeon for expert opinion and rest of the injuries were simple in nature. It is next submitted that the alleged injured persons have been examined two days after the occurrence, which also creates doubt upon the veracity of the prosecution story. It is also urged that although the injured Ranjit was advised for X-ray and to go to eye surgeon but however, the said injured has given his statement that no X-ray was performed by him and his eye injury was cured. It is further submitted that the story of recovery of one gold ring, iron rod and danda from the possession of the accused appellants Lokesh Yadav, Rohtash Yadav, Sripal Yadav, Pawan Yadav and Brijesh Yadav is absolutely false and concocted story which has no independent witness for corroboration.

7. Another limb of argument put-forward by learned counsel for the appellants is that there was no source of light at the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that no offence under Sections 307 and 412 I.P.C. is made out against the appellants on the basis of materials collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, even the allegations to constitute the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. are also vague and does not find support from the statements of the injured and eye witnesses. No motive behind the crime has been assigned by the prosecution. It is notable that in the F.I.R. there is no whisper of any weapon used by the accused appellants in the alleged incident but however, subsequently an improvement was made in the statements of the witnesses and it was stated that iron rod, lathi and danda were used in the commission of the crime, which is a significant contradiction. It is also submitted that the accused appellants are respectable persons and the criminal antecedents of four cases shown against the appellant Shripal Yadav, three cases against appellant Brijesh Yadav, one case against appellant Satish Yadav, two cases against appellant Udaiveer Yadav alias Udal, two cases against appellant Ajay Yadav, one case against appellant Shishupal alias Shushpal and three cases against the appellant Lokesh Yadav alias Pintar have been sufficiently explained. The appellants Sripal Yadav, Pawan Yadav, Brijesh Yadav, Batua alias Ravi Yadav, Udaiveer Yadav Alias Udal, Ajay Yadav, Shishupal Yadav alias Shushpal, Rohtash Yadav, Lokesh Yadav @ Pintar are languishing in jail since 24.02.2025, appellants Saish Yadav, Deepu Alias Deepak Yadav, Shubham Yadav Alias Shuvam are in jail since 25.02.2025 and Amit and Anil are in jail since 26.02.2025. It is next 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 orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellants suffer from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

8. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for bail and it is submitted that both the parties were well known to each other and there was no possibility of false implication of the present accused appellants and being native of the same village, the informant and other persons of the village have identified the appellants. It is further submitted that due to the offence committed by the accused appellants, the marriage of both the daughters of the informant also could not be performed. The accused persons are powerful persons of the village. Their offences are very serious particularly, keeping in view the fact that the informant of this case belongs to weaker section of the society and member of the SC/ST community.

9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned orders carefully.

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the injuries sustained by the injured persons, absence of motive to commit the offence by the appellants, delay in lodging of the F.I.R., medical examination of the injured persons, custody period of the appellants, no corroboration of the alleged recovery from the possession of the accused persons by any independent witness, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail applications of the appellants. The impugned orders suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same are liable to be set-aside and the appeals are liable to be allowed.

11. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellants are set-aside.

12. Let the appellants Sripal Yadav, Pawan Yadav, Brijesh Yadav, Batua alias Ravi Yadav, Udaiveer Yadav Alias Udal, Ajay Yadav, Shishupal Yadav alias Shushpal, Satish Yadav, Rohtash Yadav, Lokesh Yadav @ Pintar, Deepu Alias Deepak Yadav, Shubham Yadav Alias Shuvam, Amit and Anil 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 appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii). The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii). The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv). The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. (v). The appellants 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.

13. 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 :- 17.7.2025 Rmk. RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. These criminal appeals under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) have been preferred by the appellants Sripal Yadav, Pawan Yadav, Brijesh Yadav, Batua alias Ravi Yadav, Udaiveer Yadav Alias Udal, Ajay Yadav, Shishupal Yadav alias Shushpal, Satish Yadav, Rohtash Yadav, Lokesh Yadav @ Pintar, Deepu Alias Deepak Yadav, Shubham Yadav Alias Shuvam, Amit and Anil with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection orders dated 10.04.2025 and 01.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mathura and to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 71 of 2025, under Sections 310(2), 311, 74, 324(4), 109, 317(3), 351(2) B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(1) & (1)(2) and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Refinery, District Mathura.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the entire record.

3. Before starting the merits of the materials on record, it is desirable to have a glance upon the prosecution story.

4. The marriage of the daughters of the informant Padam Singh was scheduled on 21.02.2025 and when both of his daughters were coming from beauty-parlor on the said date at about 9.30 P.M. alongwith their uncle and aunt Ranjit and Roshani, their vehicle was stopped at the Gaushala in the way by Lokesh, Satish, Shishupal, Rohtash, Ajay, Sripal, Nishant, Udal, Brijesh, Deepu, Shubham, Pawan, Batuwa, Anil and Amit and some unknown persons, who tried to outrage the modesty of his daughters, made an assault upon the brother-in-law of the informant and some rings were also taken by them. When the informant alongwith some other persons reached on the spot, they were threatened by the aforesaid accused persons. The accused persons also hurled abuses by caste related remarks as the informant belongs to SC/ST community. Meanwhile, the accused Satish came by his tractor and caused damage to two vehicles and also attacked upon the brother- in-law of the informant with intention to kill him. The matter was reported to the police and investigation culminated in the charge sheet.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent, they have not committed the alleged offence but they have been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. is delayed without any plausible explanation of the same and it was lodged after consultation and deliberation. It is next submitted that the prosecution story does not find corroboration from the medical evidence. It is also submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the accused appellants except the accused appellant Satish. It is next submitted that the F.I.R. is silent on the point as to whether the accused appellants were carrying any weapon with them. It is next submitted that there is no independent/impartial witness of the occurrence and all the witnesses are family members of the informant.

6. It is further submitted that the injury reports pertaining to the injured persons in this case are suspicious documents. The doctor found no fresh injury to the injured Manisha, daughter of the injured and he has also found only simple injuries on the other injured persons Rani, Padam Singh and Yogendra in their medical examination. It is also submitted that the doctor has found no fresh injury to the injured Rani, another daughter of the informant. It is also submitted that another injured Ranjit has also sustained four injuries and only his injury no. 2 was referred to eye surgeon for expert opinion and rest of the injuries were simple in nature. It is next submitted that the alleged injured persons have been examined two days after the occurrence, which also creates doubt upon the veracity of the prosecution story. It is also urged that although the injured Ranjit was advised for X-ray and to go to eye surgeon but however, the said injured has given his statement that no X-ray was performed by him and his eye injury was cured. It is further submitted that the story of recovery of one gold ring, iron rod and danda from the possession of the accused appellants Lokesh Yadav, Rohtash Yadav, Sripal Yadav, Pawan Yadav and Brijesh Yadav is absolutely false and concocted story which has no independent witness for corroboration.

7. Another limb of argument put-forward by learned counsel for the appellants is that there was no source of light at the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that no offence under Sections 307 and 412 I.P.C. is made out against the appellants on the basis of materials collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, even the allegations to constitute the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. are also vague and does not find support from the statements of the injured and eye witnesses. No motive behind the crime has been assigned by the prosecution. It is notable that in the F.I.R. there is no whisper of any weapon used by the accused appellants in the alleged incident but however, subsequently an improvement was made in the statements of the witnesses and it was stated that iron rod, lathi and danda were used in the commission of the crime, which is a significant contradiction. It is also submitted that the accused appellants are respectable persons and the criminal antecedents of four cases shown against the appellant Shripal Yadav, three cases against appellant Brijesh Yadav, one case against appellant Satish Yadav, two cases against appellant Udaiveer Yadav alias Udal, two cases against appellant Ajay Yadav, one case against appellant Shishupal alias Shushpal and three cases against the appellant Lokesh Yadav alias Pintar have been sufficiently explained. The appellants Sripal Yadav, Pawan Yadav, Brijesh Yadav, Batua alias Ravi Yadav, Udaiveer Yadav Alias Udal, Ajay Yadav, Shishupal Yadav alias Shushpal, Rohtash Yadav, Lokesh Yadav @ Pintar are languishing in jail since 24.02.2025, appellants Saish Yadav, Deepu Alias Deepak Yadav, Shubham Yadav Alias Shuvam are in jail since 25.02.2025 and Amit and Anil are in jail since 26.02.2025. It is next 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 orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellants suffer from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

8. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer for bail and it is submitted that both the parties were well known to each other and there was no possibility of false implication of the present accused appellants and being native of the same village, the informant and other persons of the village have identified the appellants. It is further submitted that due to the offence committed by the accused appellants, the marriage of both the daughters of the informant also could not be performed. The accused persons are powerful persons of the village. Their offences are very serious particularly, keeping in view the fact that the informant of this case belongs to weaker section of the society and member of the SC/ST community.

9. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned orders carefully.

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the injuries sustained by the injured persons, absence of motive to commit the offence by the appellants, delay in lodging of the F.I.R., medical examination of the injured persons, custody period of the appellants, no corroboration of the alleged recovery from the possession of the accused persons by any independent witness, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail applications of the appellants. The impugned orders suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same are liable to be set-aside and the appeals are liable to be allowed.

11. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellants are set-aside.

12. Let the appellants Sripal Yadav, Pawan Yadav, Brijesh Yadav, Batua alias Ravi Yadav, Udaiveer Yadav Alias Udal, Ajay Yadav, Shishupal Yadav alias Shushpal, Satish Yadav, Rohtash Yadav, Lokesh Yadav @ Pintar, Deepu Alias Deepak Yadav, Shubham Yadav Alias Shuvam, Amit and Anil 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 appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii). The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii). The appellants will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv). The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. (v). The appellants 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.

13. 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 :- 17.7.2025 Rmk. RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad