High Court · 2025

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8213 of 2024 Appellant :- Dabba @ Dablu Maurya @ Dabba Vishwakarma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Harendra Yadav,Prabhat Singh,Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Gaurav Kumar Chaturvedi With Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 614 of 2025 Appellant :- Vinod Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Gaurav Kumar Chaturvedi Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the material available on record.

2. Short counter affidavit filed today by learned A.G.A. in Criminal Appeal No. 7254 of 2024 is taken on record.

3. Since these criminal appeals arise out of same case crime number, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.

4. These four criminal appeals under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) have been preferred by the appellants Kishore Yadav @ Bangali, Dashrath Gupta, Dabba @ Dablu Maurya @ Dabba Vishwakarma and Vinod Yadav with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection orders dated 08.07.2024, 19.07.2024, 24.07.2024 and 06.01.2025 respectively, passed by the leaned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur and to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 99 of 2024, under Sections 147, 149, 120B, 307, 308, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Jafrabad, District Jaunpur.

5. F.I.R. of the present case was lodged on 22.6.2024 against the accused appellants and three others and according to the F.I.R. due to the dispute with regard to the construction on the road, on 22.6.2024, appellants alongwith other accused persons entered in the house of the informant and made assault through wooden sticks and iron rods and due to the assault made by them, informant and others sustained injuries.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent, they have not committed the alleged offence but they have been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. It is further submitted that on the basis of false allegations only due to enmity with regard to land, appellants have been made accused in the present matter and actually, they neither participated in the incident nor they caused any injury to any of the injured. It is next submitted that in the incident, three persons sustained injuries including the injured Amar Bahadur and from perusal of their injury reports, it reflects that injured Chhadu Sonkar sustained simple injuries and another injured Amar Jeet Sonkar sustained one injury on his occipital region and he was referred for x-ray but his x-ray was not conducted, therefore, it appears that he did not sustain serious injuries. It is also submitted that from perusal of the injury report of injured Amar Bahadur, it reflects that he sustained one injury over his left parietal region and x-ray report suggests that no bony injury was found but from perusal of his CT scan report, it reflects that his parietal bone was found fractured but there is no evidence on record which can suggest that appellants caused head injury to him as only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including the appellants.

7. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of Kudal, which is allegedly used in the commission of crime on the pointing out of accused Thelu Sonkar and Urmila Devi, is a concocted piece of evidence and is not supported by it. It is next submitted that out of aforesaid two accused persons, accused Urmila Devi has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.09.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31510 of 2024. The principal offender Thelu Sonkar, who was having land dispute with the informant side, might have animosity with the informant side but so far as the present appellants are concerned, they have absolutely no motive to commit the crime. It is also submitted that bail application of co-accused Thelu Sonkar was rejected by co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.10.2024 on the ground that he appeared to be principal offender and he had also motive to cause injury to the informant and others. It is also submitted that no specific role of assault has been assigned to any of the accused appellants. A specific plea has been taken on behalf of the accused appellant Dashrath Gupta that in the F.I.R. he is not named but subsequently in the statement made by the the informant before the Investigating Officer his name was taken for the first time and he was falsely implicated in this case.

8. 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 appellants Kishore Yadav @ Bangali, Dashrath Gupta, Dabba @ Dablu Maurya @ Dabba Vishwakarma are in jail since 24.06.2024 and appellant Vinod Yadav is in jail since 28.12.2024. The appellants Kishore Yadav @ Bangali, Dabba @ Dablu Maurya @ Dabba Vishwakarma and Vinod Yadav have no criminal history to their credit whereas appellant Dashrath Gupta has criminal history of two cases which have been explained in the supplementary affidavit dated 10.12.2024. It is lastly submitted that the impugned orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellants suffer from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer and submitted that due to the assault made by appellants and other co-accused persons, three injured persons sustained simple injuries and two injured persons sustained serious injuries on their head. CT scan report of the head of the injured Amar Bahadur shows that he sustained several fractures on parietal and frontal bones and severe hemorrhage in the skull area, therefore, his injures were dangerous to life. It is further submitted that the said injured is a case of hearing impairment and is having 100% permanent disability in relation to his ear. It is next submitted that the medical reports pertaining to the injured Amar Bahadur, which were left over by the Investigating Officer, are now part of the record and were collected by the Investigating Officer during course of further investigation. All the witnesses of fact/injured witnesses have corroborated the prosecution version in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made before the Investigating Officer. It is next submitted that statements of the witnesses made before the Investigating Officer are inconsistent so far as the role of appellant Dashrath Gupta is concerned and he is also actively participated in the commission of crime. It is also submitted that from the statement of the injured Amar Bahadur, which is part of record, it reflects that he was so badly injured that he was not even in the position to give his statement properly and therefore, considering the injury report of the injured Amar Bahadur, his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and his CT scan report and allegations levelled against the appellants, they should not be released on bail.

10. It is further submitted that the appeal/bail application of co- accused Thelu Sonkar has been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court although he has a motive to commit the murder but only for this reason, the present appellants cannot be given any relief because they also actively participated in commission of the crime and their conduct shows that the attack was made certainly with intention to kill the injured. It is also submitted that so far as recovery of Kudal and other submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, they relate to the merits of the case and no opinion can be formed at this stage and they may be made out on merits. It is also submitted that the crime was committed by the appellants in prosecution of common object of all and they all were members of unlawful assembly. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act completely applied to this case.

11. 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.

12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, serious injuries mainly caused to the injured Amar Bahadur and role of assault attributed to the appellants, rejection of bail application of co-accused Thelu Sonkar who participated in the crime alongwith appellants, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants have failed to make out a case for bail. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The impugned orders do not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the appeals are refused. The criminal appeals being devoid of merits are liable to be dismissed and the criminal appeals are accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Rmk. RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 8213 of 2024 Appellant :- Dabba @ Dablu Maurya @ Dabba Vishwakarma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Harendra Yadav,Prabhat Singh,Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Gaurav Kumar Chaturvedi With Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 614 of 2025 Appellant :- Vinod Yadav Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Gaurav Kumar Chaturvedi Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the material available on record.

2. Short counter affidavit filed today by learned A.G.A. in Criminal Appeal No. 7254 of 2024 is taken on record.

3. Since these criminal appeals arise out of same case crime number, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.

4. These four criminal appeals under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) have been preferred by the appellants Kishore Yadav @ Bangali, Dashrath Gupta, Dabba @ Dablu Maurya @ Dabba Vishwakarma and Vinod Yadav with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection orders dated 08.07.2024, 19.07.2024, 24.07.2024 and 06.01.2025 respectively, passed by the leaned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jaunpur and to release them on bail in Case Crime No. 99 of 2024, under Sections 147, 149, 120B, 307, 308, 323, 452, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Jafrabad, District Jaunpur.

5. F.I.R. of the present case was lodged on 22.6.2024 against the accused appellants and three others and according to the F.I.R. due to the dispute with regard to the construction on the road, on 22.6.2024, appellants alongwith other accused persons entered in the house of the informant and made assault through wooden sticks and iron rods and due to the assault made by them, informant and others sustained injuries.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent, they have not committed the alleged offence but they have been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. It is further submitted that on the basis of false allegations only due to enmity with regard to land, appellants have been made accused in the present matter and actually, they neither participated in the incident nor they caused any injury to any of the injured. It is next submitted that in the incident, three persons sustained injuries including the injured Amar Bahadur and from perusal of their injury reports, it reflects that injured Chhadu Sonkar sustained simple injuries and another injured Amar Jeet Sonkar sustained one injury on his occipital region and he was referred for x-ray but his x-ray was not conducted, therefore, it appears that he did not sustain serious injuries. It is also submitted that from perusal of the injury report of injured Amar Bahadur, it reflects that he sustained one injury over his left parietal region and x-ray report suggests that no bony injury was found but from perusal of his CT scan report, it reflects that his parietal bone was found fractured but there is no evidence on record which can suggest that appellants caused head injury to him as only general allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons including the appellants.

7. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of Kudal, which is allegedly used in the commission of crime on the pointing out of accused Thelu Sonkar and Urmila Devi, is a concocted piece of evidence and is not supported by it. It is next submitted that out of aforesaid two accused persons, accused Urmila Devi has been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.09.2024 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 31510 of 2024. The principal offender Thelu Sonkar, who was having land dispute with the informant side, might have animosity with the informant side but so far as the present appellants are concerned, they have absolutely no motive to commit the crime. It is also submitted that bail application of co-accused Thelu Sonkar was rejected by co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.10.2024 on the ground that he appeared to be principal offender and he had also motive to cause injury to the informant and others. It is also submitted that no specific role of assault has been assigned to any of the accused appellants. A specific plea has been taken on behalf of the accused appellant Dashrath Gupta that in the F.I.R. he is not named but subsequently in the statement made by the the informant before the Investigating Officer his name was taken for the first time and he was falsely implicated in this case.

8. 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 appellants Kishore Yadav @ Bangali, Dashrath Gupta, Dabba @ Dablu Maurya @ Dabba Vishwakarma are in jail since 24.06.2024 and appellant Vinod Yadav is in jail since 28.12.2024. The appellants Kishore Yadav @ Bangali, Dabba @ Dablu Maurya @ Dabba Vishwakarma and Vinod Yadav have no criminal history to their credit whereas appellant Dashrath Gupta has criminal history of two cases which have been explained in the supplementary affidavit dated 10.12.2024. It is lastly submitted that the impugned orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellants suffer from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the informant-opposite party no. 2 opposed the prayer and submitted that due to the assault made by appellants and other co-accused persons, three injured persons sustained simple injuries and two injured persons sustained serious injuries on their head. CT scan report of the head of the injured Amar Bahadur shows that he sustained several fractures on parietal and frontal bones and severe hemorrhage in the skull area, therefore, his injures were dangerous to life. It is further submitted that the said injured is a case of hearing impairment and is having 100% permanent disability in relation to his ear. It is next submitted that the medical reports pertaining to the injured Amar Bahadur, which were left over by the Investigating Officer, are now part of the record and were collected by the Investigating Officer during course of further investigation. All the witnesses of fact/injured witnesses have corroborated the prosecution version in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made before the Investigating Officer. It is next submitted that statements of the witnesses made before the Investigating Officer are inconsistent so far as the role of appellant Dashrath Gupta is concerned and he is also actively participated in the commission of crime. It is also submitted that from the statement of the injured Amar Bahadur, which is part of record, it reflects that he was so badly injured that he was not even in the position to give his statement properly and therefore, considering the injury report of the injured Amar Bahadur, his statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. and his CT scan report and allegations levelled against the appellants, they should not be released on bail.

10. It is further submitted that the appeal/bail application of co- accused Thelu Sonkar has been rejected by co-ordinate Bench of this Court although he has a motive to commit the murder but only for this reason, the present appellants cannot be given any relief because they also actively participated in commission of the crime and their conduct shows that the attack was made certainly with intention to kill the injured. It is also submitted that so far as recovery of Kudal and other submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, they relate to the merits of the case and no opinion can be formed at this stage and they may be made out on merits. It is also submitted that the crime was committed by the appellants in prosecution of common object of all and they all were members of unlawful assembly. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act completely applied to this case.

11. 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.

12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, serious injuries mainly caused to the injured Amar Bahadur and role of assault attributed to the appellants, rejection of bail application of co-accused Thelu Sonkar who participated in the crime alongwith appellants, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants have failed to make out a case for bail. There is no force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The impugned orders do not suffer from illegality, infirmity, perversity or lack of judicial mind. The prayer made in the appeals are refused. The criminal appeals being devoid of merits are liable to be dismissed and the criminal appeals are accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Rmk. RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad