High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116709 Court No. - 83 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4077 of 2025 Appellant :- Sunil @ Kalu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ramesh Kumar
Legal Reasoning
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 Sunil @ Kalu with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mathura and to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 43 of 2025, under Sections 109, 61(2) B.N.S., Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act and Section 3/25/27 Arms Act, Police Station Raya, District Mathura. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. 3. The prosecution has come forward with the case that father of the informant works as mason and on 12.02.2025 his father received a call that a Kundi is needed to be made and his father postponed it for 13.02.2025. On 13.02.2025 at about 08.45 A.M. a call again came for making kundi and called him on the minar and from there he took his father on his motorcycle to the forest where two fires were made upon the injured to kill him by some unknown person. Out of two fires, one fire hit upon the back of the injured and he sustained injury on his back. The injured was taken to the District Hospital, Mathura and F.I.R. was lodged on 15.02.2025. 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 it is a case of no evidence. It is next submitted that the appellant was having no motive to commit the alleged offence. It is next submitted that there is no eye witness of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that the prosecution has tried to make out a case against the appellant on the ground that wife of the injured was having illicit relation with the present appellant and with the conspiracy of the wife of the injured, the alleged offence was committed by the present appellant. It is next submitted that the Investigating Officer has collected no evidence relating to illicit relation between the wife of the injured and present appellant. It is also submitted that the injured has sustained only simple injury as is evident from perusal of the injury report of the injured issued by the doctor. It is further submitted that the prosecution story is absolutely false and concocted. The story of recovery of alleged arms used in the commission of the crime, as stated by the prosecution, is concocted and is not corroborated by any independent witness. It is next submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 23.02.2025 having no criminal history to his credit. 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 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. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the bail application and it has been submitted that the wife of the injured was having some extra marital affairs with the appellant. During course of investigation, call details chart of the mobile phone as well as mobile phone of the appellant was collected by the Investigating Officer and taken into his possession. It is further submitted that the injured of this case in his statement has clearly stated that when the accused appellant was trying to run away, he saw the number plate of the motorcycle and registered owner of the motorcycle was found to be real brother of the present appellant. It is next submitted that the appellant himself confessed before the police that the said motorcycle is registered in the name of his brother Bharat by which he had taken away to the injured at the alleged place of occurrence. It is also submitted that the appellant also confessed that the recovered country made pistol is the same by which he had fired upon the injured. 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 also keeping in view the fact that the F.I.R. of this case was lodged after two days of the alleged occurrence without any plausible explanation of delay, nature of the injury sustained by the injured where no fracture was found, electronic evidence submitted alongwith charge sheet and not corroborated by any forensic report and no criminal record of the appellant, this 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 Sunil @ Kalu 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 :- 18.7.2025 Rmk. Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad