High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties in this matter.

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

3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Bhagwandeen Yadav against the bail rejection order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 2/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat, in Case Crime No. 404 of 2023, under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC, and under Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station Chaubepur, District- Kanpur Dehat.

4. The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that the victim Ram Babu Gautam husband of the informant Madhu was assaulted by kicks and fists on the tubewell of Santosh Dixit by named accused persons Raju Yadav, Chhotku Yadav and Bhagwandeen Yadav on 14.11.2023 at about 12:00 in the noon and he was pushed into the tubewell by the accused persons whereby he sustained serious injuries. F.I.R. was lodged on 15.11.2023 and the injured was taken for medical examination but he could not survive.

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. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that in fact there is no eye witness of this alleged occurrence according to the version of F.I.R. but the police has made a concocted story and obtained some alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence. It is also submitted that in the F.I.R. version nowhere indicates that death of the injured was caused during the incident but surprisingly the F.I.R. of this case was lodged under section 302 IPC. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact the deceased was drunkard person and in the state of intoxication he fell down in the tubewell and sustained serious injuries which were proved fatal for him. It is also submitted that in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. the informant of this case has made some twisted statement against the present appellant. No incriminating article has been recovered by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that at the time of postmortem doctor has found some injuries over the body of the deceased which were the result of his falling down into the tubewell. It is further submitted that after submission of charge-sheet the trial in this case has started and the witnesses of fact have turned hostile and do not support the prosecution version. In this connection emphasis has been laid down upon oral testimony of witnesses PW-1 Mahesh Kumar and PW-2 Vijay Kumar and copies of statements of PW-1 Mahesh Kumar and PW- 2 Vijay Kumar have been annexed with supplementary affidavit. It is also submitted that the present appellant is having no criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 16.11.2023. 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 lastly 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 AGA and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the appeal and bail application moved by the accused-appellant and it has been submitted that there was no possibility of false implication of the appellant and other co-accused persons in this case. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia of any case and if the name of the witnesses were missing in the F.I.R. it never leaves any adverse implicate the prosecution story. Eye witnesses of the case including the informant herself have corroborated the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. The medical evidence corroborates the prosecution story in material terms. The cause of death has been found by the doctor as disclosed in the postmortem report is coma due to ante mortem head injury and spinal injury which was caused by hard and blunt object. It is next submitted that prosecution story is well supported by the witnesses of fact and medical evidence as well and there is no ground to allow the instant appeal. The appellant has named as accused in the F.I.R itself. During trial the prosecution has to produce some other material witnesses of this case and at this stage no benefit may be given to the appellant only on the ground of hostility of some of the witnesses. It is lastly submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belongs to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 21.03.2024. On these grounds prayer for dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the bail application has been made.

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. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the trial court has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. Hence, having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, 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.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 Vikram VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties in this matter.

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

3. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant Bhagwandeen Yadav against the bail rejection order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 2/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat, in Case Crime No. 404 of 2023, under Sections 302, 323, 504, 506 IPC, and under Section 3(2)V of SC/ST Act, Police Station Chaubepur, District- Kanpur Dehat.

4. The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that the victim Ram Babu Gautam husband of the informant Madhu was assaulted by kicks and fists on the tubewell of Santosh Dixit by named accused persons Raju Yadav, Chhotku Yadav and Bhagwandeen Yadav on 14.11.2023 at about 12:00 in the noon and he was pushed into the tubewell by the accused persons whereby he sustained serious injuries. F.I.R. was lodged on 15.11.2023 and the injured was taken for medical examination but he could not survive.

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. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that in fact there is no eye witness of this alleged occurrence according to the version of F.I.R. but the police has made a concocted story and obtained some alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence. It is also submitted that in the F.I.R. version nowhere indicates that death of the injured was caused during the incident but surprisingly the F.I.R. of this case was lodged under section 302 IPC. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact the deceased was drunkard person and in the state of intoxication he fell down in the tubewell and sustained serious injuries which were proved fatal for him. It is also submitted that in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. the informant of this case has made some twisted statement against the present appellant. No incriminating article has been recovered by the Investigating Officer from the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that at the time of postmortem doctor has found some injuries over the body of the deceased which were the result of his falling down into the tubewell. It is further submitted that after submission of charge-sheet the trial in this case has started and the witnesses of fact have turned hostile and do not support the prosecution version. In this connection emphasis has been laid down upon oral testimony of witnesses PW-1 Mahesh Kumar and PW-2 Vijay Kumar and copies of statements of PW-1 Mahesh Kumar and PW- 2 Vijay Kumar have been annexed with supplementary affidavit. It is also submitted that the present appellant is having no criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 16.11.2023. 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 lastly 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 AGA and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the appeal and bail application moved by the accused-appellant and it has been submitted that there was no possibility of false implication of the appellant and other co-accused persons in this case. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia of any case and if the name of the witnesses were missing in the F.I.R. it never leaves any adverse implicate the prosecution story. Eye witnesses of the case including the informant herself have corroborated the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. The medical evidence corroborates the prosecution story in material terms. The cause of death has been found by the doctor as disclosed in the postmortem report is coma due to ante mortem head injury and spinal injury which was caused by hard and blunt object. It is next submitted that prosecution story is well supported by the witnesses of fact and medical evidence as well and there is no ground to allow the instant appeal. The appellant has named as accused in the F.I.R itself. During trial the prosecution has to produce some other material witnesses of this case and at this stage no benefit may be given to the appellant only on the ground of hostility of some of the witnesses. It is lastly submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belongs to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 21.03.2024. On these grounds prayer for dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the bail application has been made.

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. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the trial court has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. Hence, having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, 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.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 28.2.2025 Vikram VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad