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 - Raju Thakur with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.5.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mathura and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 9 of 2024 under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 452, 504 IPC and 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. Jait, District Mathura.

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

3. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 1.1.2024 at 12.30 p.m. when the informant was not at home, the appellant came to his house and started abusing his wife and when she protested the appellant made knife blows upon her and she sustained several injuries. F.I.R. was lodged on 10.1.2024 and subsequently the injured died of the knife injuries and the matter was converted into the offence under Sections 323, 324, 302, 307, 452, 504 IPC and 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act.

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. It is further submitted that the appellant has no concern at all with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged with inordinate delay of ten days without any plausible explanation. It is also submitted that though the wife of the informant died on 10.1.2024 at 2.30 p.m. but surprisingly F.I.R. was not lodged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. It is further submitted that the informant is a witness of inquest as well wherein he has stated before the concerned Sub-Inspector that any unknown person has cut the throat of his wife by some sharp edged weapon and she was hospitalized for treatment. It is submitted that in the said statement the name of the present appellant was not disclosed by the informant whereas the inquest had taken place on 11.1.2024. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness of the occurrence and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the appellant is in jail since 12.1.2022. It is further submitted that the deceased was married earlier to one Shyam Lal Jatav but subsequently love affair developed between the informant and the deceased and she started living with the informant. The present appellant had no motive to commit murder of the deceased. It is further submitted that the story of recovery of murder weapon 'knife' on the pointing out of the appellant is a false and concocted story of the police, which finds no support from any independent witness. It is further submitted that the criminal history of the appellant has been sufficiently explained. 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 AGA opposing the prayer submitted that although the deceased was the wife of the informant but the present appellant developed some affair with her and on the fateful day in the absence of the informant when he came to his wife and insisted the deceased to go with him, which was denied by the deceased, the appellant committed her murder by several blows of knife. It is also submitted that the medical evidence supports the prosecution version. It is further submitted that the murder weapon 'knife' has been retrieved on the pointing out of the appellant. Sufficient and consistent evidence has been collected by the I.O. of this case during investigation against the appellant. It is a case of murder of a poor lady who belongs to SC/ST community and is a member of weaker section of the society. Offence committed by the appellant is very serious and grievous. In the post mortem report cause of death has been found as shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injury and serious cut injuries by some sharp edged weapon have been found over the body of the deceased. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and appeal deserves to be dismissed.

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. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the Court concerned has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and the role of the appellant the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. The Court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 MAHBOOB SAFI 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 - Raju Thakur with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.5.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mathura and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 9 of 2024 under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 452, 504 IPC and 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. Jait, District Mathura.

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

3. The prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 1.1.2024 at 12.30 p.m. when the informant was not at home, the appellant came to his house and started abusing his wife and when she protested the appellant made knife blows upon her and she sustained several injuries. F.I.R. was lodged on 10.1.2024 and subsequently the injured died of the knife injuries and the matter was converted into the offence under Sections 323, 324, 302, 307, 452, 504 IPC and 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act.

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. It is further submitted that the appellant has no concern at all with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged with inordinate delay of ten days without any plausible explanation. It is also submitted that though the wife of the informant died on 10.1.2024 at 2.30 p.m. but surprisingly F.I.R. was not lodged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. It is further submitted that the informant is a witness of inquest as well wherein he has stated before the concerned Sub-Inspector that any unknown person has cut the throat of his wife by some sharp edged weapon and she was hospitalized for treatment. It is submitted that in the said statement the name of the present appellant was not disclosed by the informant whereas the inquest had taken place on 11.1.2024. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness of the occurrence and the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that the appellant is in jail since 12.1.2022. It is further submitted that the deceased was married earlier to one Shyam Lal Jatav but subsequently love affair developed between the informant and the deceased and she started living with the informant. The present appellant had no motive to commit murder of the deceased. It is further submitted that the story of recovery of murder weapon 'knife' on the pointing out of the appellant is a false and concocted story of the police, which finds no support from any independent witness. It is further submitted that the criminal history of the appellant has been sufficiently explained. 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 AGA opposing the prayer submitted that although the deceased was the wife of the informant but the present appellant developed some affair with her and on the fateful day in the absence of the informant when he came to his wife and insisted the deceased to go with him, which was denied by the deceased, the appellant committed her murder by several blows of knife. It is also submitted that the medical evidence supports the prosecution version. It is further submitted that the murder weapon 'knife' has been retrieved on the pointing out of the appellant. Sufficient and consistent evidence has been collected by the I.O. of this case during investigation against the appellant. It is a case of murder of a poor lady who belongs to SC/ST community and is a member of weaker section of the society. Offence committed by the appellant is very serious and grievous. In the post mortem report cause of death has been found as shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injury and serious cut injuries by some sharp edged weapon have been found over the body of the deceased. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order and appeal deserves to be dismissed.

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. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the Court concerned has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and the role of the appellant the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. The Court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad