Vikas Mali v. State of U.P.) in Case Crime No

Appellant :- Vikas Mali Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Mishra,Ankit Kumar,Shrawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava,G.A. 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 - Vikas Mali with the prayer to allow the present appeal and set-aside the bail rejection order dated 10.6.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bhadohi at Gyanpur in Bail Application No.401 of 2024 (Vikas Mali Vs. State of U.P.) in Case Crime No.44 of 2024 under Sections 302, 201 IPC and 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Gopiganj, District Bhadohi. Further prayer has been made to release the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the entire record.

3. The record of the case reveals that Sani Dewal Bhartiya, the son of the informant Jokhulal Bhartiya, left his house alongwith his associates Vikas Mali (the present appellant) and Vishal by splendor motorcycle on 10.2.2024 at about 8:00 P.M. On the next day, the said Vishal told Pawan, the grandson of the informant, on phone to take the motorcycle of Sani from Lokmanpur Talaab and when Pawan went there he was told by Vishal that Sani had gone to Bhadohi. Subsequently when Sani did not come back, an application was given by the informant at P.S. Handia on 13.2.2024 but on 15.2.2024 at about 1:00 P.M., on an information received by Suresh, another son of the informant, the informant side went to P.S. Gopiganj and then to mortuary house where the informant identified the dead body of his son Sani. The named F.I.R. against Vikas, Vishal and Ankit Dubey was lodged on

16.2.2024.

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 also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that there is actually no evidence against the appellant. The incriminating material in this case has been retrieved by the police on the pointing out of the co-accused Vishal and surprisingly the other co- accused Ankit Dubey has been exonerated by the I.O. during investigation. It is also submitted that there is no evidence at all to the effect that the present appellant alongwith the co-accused Vishal took the deceased from his house and they went away by motorcycle. No offence has been committed by the appellant and he had absolutely no motive to commit the same. It is also submitted that in the postmortem report only one injury has been found upon the body of the deceased whereas the prosecution claims that he was thrown in a Well. It is also submitted that there is no independent witness of this case. Deceased himself was a history-sheeter having more than 20 criminal cases against him. The present appellant had absolutely no role in the commission of the alleged crime. He is languishing in jail since 23.2.2024.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the present appeal and it has been vehemently argued that the informant is the eyewitness of this fact that on 10.2.2024 at about 8:00 P.M., on call of the accused appellant and vishal, the deceased left his house by motorcycle informing his family members that he was going to meet Vishal and Vikas Mali. The dead body of the deceased was retrieved on 15.2.2024 and postmortem was conducted on 16.2.2024 wherein it was found that the death of the deceased was likely to be occurred 4 to 6 days prior to the postmortem. The said time finds match with the incident of taking away of the deceased by the accused persons from his house. It is also submitted that the informant in his statement given to the I.O. has stated that the deceased made several phone calls and whenever he was asked, he told that he was talking to the present accused appellant Vikas Mali and he has to go to the house of Vikas Mali. It is also submitted that the CDR has also been collected by the I.O. wherein the deceased and accused persons of this case were found talking on phone several times. It is also submitted that although the co-accused Ankit Dubey has been exonerated by the I.O. but the present accused appellant and other co-accused Vishal have been found guilty by the I.O., however co-accused Vishal has been declared juvenile and on his pointing out the iron rod, which was the murder weapon, has been retrieved by the police. The I.O. has also collected evidence to the effect that with the aid of iron rod the present appellant and co-accused Vishal have made fatal assault over the deceased and they had thrown the iron rod in the Well. It is also submitted that in the postmortem report the cause of death of the deceased has been found as haemorrhagic shock due to antemortem head injury by the doctor and he has further found an external antemortem injury / wound of size 4 cm. x 1.5 cm. over right parietal region with underlying bone fracture. It is also submitted that the deceased was a young boy belonged to weaker section of the Society and ample evidence was collected by the I.O. against the present accused appellant as well and his active participation in the commission of the crime has been come into light on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation. The appellant is not entitled for any relaxation and his bail application is liable to be rejected and the appeal is liable 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 bail rejection order carefully.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the rival submissions made by the parties, nature of offence, complicity of accused and taking into account the fact that the deceased belonged to weaker section of the Society and ample evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer against the present accused appellant as well and his active participation in the commission of the crime has been come into light on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation, this Court finds that no ground is made out to allow the appeal, set-aside the anticipatory bail rejection order and release the accused appellant on bail.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Appellant :- Vikas Mali Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Mishra,Ankit Kumar,Shrawan Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava,G.A. 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 - Vikas Mali with the prayer to allow the present appeal and set-aside the bail rejection order dated 10.6.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Bhadohi at Gyanpur in Bail Application No.401 of 2024 (Vikas Mali Vs. State of U.P.) in Case Crime No.44 of 2024 under Sections 302, 201 IPC and 3 (2) (V) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Gopiganj, District Bhadohi. Further prayer has been made to release the appellant on bail in the aforesaid case.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the entire record.

3. The record of the case reveals that Sani Dewal Bhartiya, the son of the informant Jokhulal Bhartiya, left his house alongwith his associates Vikas Mali (the present appellant) and Vishal by splendor motorcycle on 10.2.2024 at about 8:00 P.M. On the next day, the said Vishal told Pawan, the grandson of the informant, on phone to take the motorcycle of Sani from Lokmanpur Talaab and when Pawan went there he was told by Vishal that Sani had gone to Bhadohi. Subsequently when Sani did not come back, an application was given by the informant at P.S. Handia on 13.2.2024 but on 15.2.2024 at about 1:00 P.M., on an information received by Suresh, another son of the informant, the informant side went to P.S. Gopiganj and then to mortuary house where the informant identified the dead body of his son Sani. The named F.I.R. against Vikas, Vishal and Ankit Dubey was lodged on

16.2.2024.

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 also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that there is actually no evidence against the appellant. The incriminating material in this case has been retrieved by the police on the pointing out of the co-accused Vishal and surprisingly the other co- accused Ankit Dubey has been exonerated by the I.O. during investigation. It is also submitted that there is no evidence at all to the effect that the present appellant alongwith the co-accused Vishal took the deceased from his house and they went away by motorcycle. No offence has been committed by the appellant and he had absolutely no motive to commit the same. It is also submitted that in the postmortem report only one injury has been found upon the body of the deceased whereas the prosecution claims that he was thrown in a Well. It is also submitted that there is no independent witness of this case. Deceased himself was a history-sheeter having more than 20 criminal cases against him. The present appellant had absolutely no role in the commission of the alleged crime. He is languishing in jail since 23.2.2024.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the present appeal and it has been vehemently argued that the informant is the eyewitness of this fact that on 10.2.2024 at about 8:00 P.M., on call of the accused appellant and vishal, the deceased left his house by motorcycle informing his family members that he was going to meet Vishal and Vikas Mali. The dead body of the deceased was retrieved on 15.2.2024 and postmortem was conducted on 16.2.2024 wherein it was found that the death of the deceased was likely to be occurred 4 to 6 days prior to the postmortem. The said time finds match with the incident of taking away of the deceased by the accused persons from his house. It is also submitted that the informant in his statement given to the I.O. has stated that the deceased made several phone calls and whenever he was asked, he told that he was talking to the present accused appellant Vikas Mali and he has to go to the house of Vikas Mali. It is also submitted that the CDR has also been collected by the I.O. wherein the deceased and accused persons of this case were found talking on phone several times. It is also submitted that although the co-accused Ankit Dubey has been exonerated by the I.O. but the present accused appellant and other co-accused Vishal have been found guilty by the I.O., however co-accused Vishal has been declared juvenile and on his pointing out the iron rod, which was the murder weapon, has been retrieved by the police. The I.O. has also collected evidence to the effect that with the aid of iron rod the present appellant and co-accused Vishal have made fatal assault over the deceased and they had thrown the iron rod in the Well. It is also submitted that in the postmortem report the cause of death of the deceased has been found as haemorrhagic shock due to antemortem head injury by the doctor and he has further found an external antemortem injury / wound of size 4 cm. x 1.5 cm. over right parietal region with underlying bone fracture. It is also submitted that the deceased was a young boy belonged to weaker section of the Society and ample evidence was collected by the I.O. against the present accused appellant as well and his active participation in the commission of the crime has been come into light on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation. The appellant is not entitled for any relaxation and his bail application is liable to be rejected and the appeal is liable 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 bail rejection order carefully.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the rival submissions made by the parties, nature of offence, complicity of accused and taking into account the fact that the deceased belonged to weaker section of the Society and ample evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer against the present accused appellant as well and his active participation in the commission of the crime has been come into light on the basis of the evidence collected during investigation, this Court finds that no ground is made out to allow the appeal, set-aside the anticipatory bail rejection order and release the accused appellant on bail.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad