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 - Mulajim Ansari @ Laddu with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 6.4.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Deoria and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 305 of 2023 under Sections 302, 201, 404 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Lar, District Deoria.

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

3. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the named accused persons Mulazim Ansari @ Laddu and Sonu Dhobi alongwith deceased Shailendra, the elder son of the informant, were labourers and some money of the accused persons was due and they used to allege the deceased for their monetary loss. On 2.11.2023 the deceased went from his house with the accused Mulazim Ansari @ Laddu and Sonu Dhobi for arrangement of money but in the same night murder of Shailendra was committed by both the accused persons after causing head injury and his dead body was also thrown in a field to disappear the evidence. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation now charge sheet has been submitted.

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. Appellant had absolutely no motive to commit the crime. The case of prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances is not complete in this matter and there is no clinching evidence against the present appellant. It is further submitted that the case is running at the stage of evidence and the PW-1, the informant in his deposition has made some relevant statements. He has stated that the written report of this case was dictated by the police officer to the scribe Rajnikant. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged belatedly by the police and PW-1/informant in his cross- examination has stated that the present appellant was detained at the police station for a period of three days and subsequently he was sent to jail. He was also present at the time of cremation of the deceased. It is also submitted that the prosecution claims that murder weapon 'brick' was retrieved by the police on the pointing out of the present appellant but the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version and some punctured wounds are found upon the body of the deceased which cannot be inflicted by use of 'brick'. There is no independent public witness of the alleged recovery of 'brick' on the pointing out of the present appellant. Appellant has no criminal history to his credit. 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. Appellant is in jail since 7.11.2023. 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 counsel for the informant and the 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. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is also submitted that the deceased was taken from his house by the present appellant and co-accused Sonu Dhobi in the night of 2.11.2023 and he was murdered in the intervening night of 2/3.11.2023. Hence, the last seen evidence is available against the present appellant and only after sometime of last seen together the deceased was murdered. It is also submitted that the dead body of the deceased was identified by the informant, father of the deceased. It is also submitted that the informant is an illiterate rustic person and some contradictions, occurred in his testimony, are natural. It is also submitted that the mobile of the deceased was taken by the present appellant and sim of the same was thrown away. The motive behind the crime was money dispute. Case is running at the stage of evidence and a lot of evidence has yet to come. In the post mortem report a number of injuries have been found upon the body of the deceased. It is also submitted that the most of the pleas taken by the learned counsel for the appellant relate to the merits of the case which cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The offence is very grave and serious.

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 fact that most of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants relate to the merits of the case which cannot be adjudicated at this stage, 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 :- 22.1.2025 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 - Mulajim Ansari @ Laddu with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 6.4.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Deoria and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 305 of 2023 under Sections 302, 201, 404 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Lar, District Deoria.

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

3. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that the named accused persons Mulazim Ansari @ Laddu and Sonu Dhobi alongwith deceased Shailendra, the elder son of the informant, were labourers and some money of the accused persons was due and they used to allege the deceased for their monetary loss. On 2.11.2023 the deceased went from his house with the accused Mulazim Ansari @ Laddu and Sonu Dhobi for arrangement of money but in the same night murder of Shailendra was committed by both the accused persons after causing head injury and his dead body was also thrown in a field to disappear the evidence. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation now charge sheet has been submitted.

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. Appellant had absolutely no motive to commit the crime. The case of prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances is not complete in this matter and there is no clinching evidence against the present appellant. It is further submitted that the case is running at the stage of evidence and the PW-1, the informant in his deposition has made some relevant statements. He has stated that the written report of this case was dictated by the police officer to the scribe Rajnikant. It is also submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged belatedly by the police and PW-1/informant in his cross- examination has stated that the present appellant was detained at the police station for a period of three days and subsequently he was sent to jail. He was also present at the time of cremation of the deceased. It is also submitted that the prosecution claims that murder weapon 'brick' was retrieved by the police on the pointing out of the present appellant but the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version and some punctured wounds are found upon the body of the deceased which cannot be inflicted by use of 'brick'. There is no independent public witness of the alleged recovery of 'brick' on the pointing out of the present appellant. Appellant has no criminal history to his credit. 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. Appellant is in jail since 7.11.2023. 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 counsel for the informant and the 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. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is also submitted that the deceased was taken from his house by the present appellant and co-accused Sonu Dhobi in the night of 2.11.2023 and he was murdered in the intervening night of 2/3.11.2023. Hence, the last seen evidence is available against the present appellant and only after sometime of last seen together the deceased was murdered. It is also submitted that the dead body of the deceased was identified by the informant, father of the deceased. It is also submitted that the informant is an illiterate rustic person and some contradictions, occurred in his testimony, are natural. It is also submitted that the mobile of the deceased was taken by the present appellant and sim of the same was thrown away. The motive behind the crime was money dispute. Case is running at the stage of evidence and a lot of evidence has yet to come. In the post mortem report a number of injuries have been found upon the body of the deceased. It is also submitted that the most of the pleas taken by the learned counsel for the appellant relate to the merits of the case which cannot be adjudicated at this stage. The offence is very grave and serious.

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 fact that most of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants relate to the merits of the case which cannot be adjudicated at this stage, 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 :- 22.1.2025 MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad