High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the State is taken on record.

2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant - Rudraksh Giri @ Ravindra Kumar to set aside the bail rejection order dated 30.9.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act / Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhal has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 190 of 2022, under sections 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Rajpura, District Sambhal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. None is present for the opposite party no.2.

4. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the F.I.R. is that on 30.5.2022 at about 11.00 p.m. the murder of deceased Ramesh Gautam was committed by the named accused Rudraksh Giri after some altercation with the aid of sword, who sustained serious injuries and succumbed to his injuries. Incident was seen by Lalu, Shispal etc. F.I.R. was lodged by the wife of the deceased on 31.5.2022. After investigation charge sheet was submitted and now the trial is going on.

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. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. It is further submitted that although charge sheet against the appellant has been filed under Sections 302 IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act but as a matter of fact the alleged incident has not been seen by any witness. It is further submitted that Lalu and Shispal, the named eye witnesses of the occurrence, has been discharged by the prosecution during trial and they have not been examined before the trial court. It is also submitted that the alleged eye witness Manoj Kumar - PW-2 has deposed before the trial court that at the time of the incident he was not present at the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that the informant Savitri Devi- PW-1, wife of the deceased, was not present on the spot at the time occurrence and she herself states before the trial court in her deposition that she reached the spot after getting the information of the incident, though she states that she has seen the accused appellant having sword in his hand and her husband was lying on the ground bloodied. It is also submitted that from the aforesaid statements it appears that there is no eye witness of the occurrence in this case. Evidence of PW-7 though reveals that he had seen the occurrence but in his cross-examination he has also made specific statement that when he reached the place of occurrence, no one was present there and all the persons had already fled away from the spot and he is unable to name any such person. It is further submitted that recovery of murder weapon 'sword' on the pointing out of the appellant is false and a concocted story of the police and in fact no incriminating article was retrieved on the pointing out of the present appellant. It is also submitted that there was no motive on the part of the appellant to commit the present offence. It is further submitted that 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 also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 1.6.2022. It is 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 A.G.A. opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. It is also submitted that from the perusal of the testimony of the PW- 1, wife of the deceased, it is evident that she had seen the appellant standing at the place of occurrence taking sword in his hand and her husband lying on the ground bloodied and he was dead. The murder weapon 'sword' has been recovered on the pointing out of the present appellant. It is also submitted that the said murder weapon was also sent to FSL. There is no false implication of the appellant in this matter. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

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, the fact that there is no eye witness of the alleged incident, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below 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.

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

10. Let the aforesaid appellant involved in 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.

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. MAHBOOB SAFI MAHBOOB SAFI MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 7.7.2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the State is taken on record.

2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant - Rudraksh Giri @ Ravindra Kumar to set aside the bail rejection order dated 30.9.2022 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST Act / Additional Sessions Judge, Sambhal has rejected the bail application of the appellant moved by him and to release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 190 of 2022, under sections 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Rajpura, District Sambhal.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record. None is present for the opposite party no.2.

4. The prosecution case, as unfolded in the F.I.R. is that on 30.5.2022 at about 11.00 p.m. the murder of deceased Ramesh Gautam was committed by the named accused Rudraksh Giri after some altercation with the aid of sword, who sustained serious injuries and succumbed to his injuries. Incident was seen by Lalu, Shispal etc. F.I.R. was lodged by the wife of the deceased on 31.5.2022. After investigation charge sheet was submitted and now the trial is going on.

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. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Essential ingredients to constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act are lacking in the matter. It is further submitted that although charge sheet against the appellant has been filed under Sections 302 IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act but as a matter of fact the alleged incident has not been seen by any witness. It is further submitted that Lalu and Shispal, the named eye witnesses of the occurrence, has been discharged by the prosecution during trial and they have not been examined before the trial court. It is also submitted that the alleged eye witness Manoj Kumar - PW-2 has deposed before the trial court that at the time of the incident he was not present at the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that the informant Savitri Devi- PW-1, wife of the deceased, was not present on the spot at the time occurrence and she herself states before the trial court in her deposition that she reached the spot after getting the information of the incident, though she states that she has seen the accused appellant having sword in his hand and her husband was lying on the ground bloodied. It is also submitted that from the aforesaid statements it appears that there is no eye witness of the occurrence in this case. Evidence of PW-7 though reveals that he had seen the occurrence but in his cross-examination he has also made specific statement that when he reached the place of occurrence, no one was present there and all the persons had already fled away from the spot and he is unable to name any such person. It is further submitted that recovery of murder weapon 'sword' on the pointing out of the appellant is false and a concocted story of the police and in fact no incriminating article was retrieved on the pointing out of the present appellant. It is also submitted that there was no motive on the part of the appellant to commit the present offence. It is further submitted that 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 also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 1.6.2022. It is 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 A.G.A. opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. It is also submitted that from the perusal of the testimony of the PW- 1, wife of the deceased, it is evident that she had seen the appellant standing at the place of occurrence taking sword in his hand and her husband lying on the ground bloodied and he was dead. The murder weapon 'sword' has been recovered on the pointing out of the present appellant. It is also submitted that the said murder weapon was also sent to FSL. There is no false implication of the appellant in this matter. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

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, the fact that there is no eye witness of the alleged incident, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court below 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.

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

10. Let the aforesaid appellant involved in 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.

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. MAHBOOB SAFI MAHBOOB SAFI MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Order Date :- 7.7.2025