High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. These criminal appeals under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants Sonu Yadav and Dhananjay Yadav against the bail rejection order dated 22.7.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Deoria in case crime no. 215 of 2024 under Sections 302, 504, 427 I.P.C. and under Sections 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Gauribazar, District- Deoria.

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

3. The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that Sanjay Prasad, the husband of the informant, was a tempo driver and on account of some dispute between the deceased and accused Sonu Yadav and Dhananjay Yadav for overtaking the vehicle, both the accused persons hurled abuses and caste related remarks and threatening for life made serious assault with intention to kill upon the head of Sanjay Prasad, who fell down and sustained serious injuries. At the time of incident five persons were travelling in the tempo and two of them also sustained injuries. Baburam, Deepak Kumar, Ramashankar and several other persons witnessed the incident. The injured persons were taken to the hospital. Sanjay Prasad was referred for medical college, Gauribazar but during treatment he expired. FIR was lodged and after initiation of prosecution now the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted there is absolutely no eyewitness of the alleged occurrence. No motive of assault has been assigned in the FIR or in the statement of witnesses for the accused persons to do away with the deceased. It is further submitted that all the alleged witnesses of fact of this case narrated before the I.O. that some local persons had identified the accused persons but however no such local person was introgated by the I.O., hence, there is absolutely no eyewitness of the incident. It is further submitted that no identification parade of the accused persons have been made by the I.O. The accused persons are having no criminal history to their credit. The alleged recovery of one brick on the pointing out of the accused persons is a false and fabricated story of prosecution. 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. Appellants are in jail since 22.5.2024. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

5. On the other hand, learned AGA vehemently opposed the appeal and bail application moved by the accused appellants and it has been submitted that the appellants committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 22.7.2024. It is further submitted that although the informant of this case is not an eyewitness of the incident but some local persons identified the accused persons on spot. The medical evidence corroborates the prosecution version and the injuries caused to the deceased might be inflicted by use of bricks and he has died due to comma as a result of ante mortem head injury as disclosed in the post mortem report. It is also submitted that the death of the deceased was caused by hitting his head with a brick and the same was retrieved by the police on the pointing out of the accused persons. It is also submitted that an altercation between the deceased and accused persons took place on the issue of over taking the vehicle. It is also submitted that the eyewitness Ram Chand Nishad, who was present at some distance from the spot corroborates the prosecution case and states that after some time he came to know the whereabouts and names of the accused persons and the same statement has been made by another eyewitness Ram Dinesh Yadav. It is further submitted that other witnesses Harikesh @ Mangru, Ajay, Sushil Kumar, Dharmendra, Sumit and Nikhil are also the eye-witnesses of the incident, who are the persons who were sitting in the tempo at the time of occurrence and they had made categorical statement that the assault on the deceased was made by use of brick by the accused appellants and their names were subsequently came to their knowledge. On these grounds prayer for dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the bail application has been made.

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 trial court has properly considered the case of the appellants while deciding the bail applications. 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, and the statement of witnesses, who were travelling in the tempo at the time of occurrence and who subsequently came to know the names of the accused persons, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have not made out a case for bail. The Court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail applications of the appellants. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity, perversity 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 appellants is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 Fhd FAHAD NIYAZ FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. These criminal appeals under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellants Sonu Yadav and Dhananjay Yadav against the bail rejection order dated 22.7.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Deoria in case crime no. 215 of 2024 under Sections 302, 504, 427 I.P.C. and under Sections 3(2)5 SC/ST Act, Police Station Gauribazar, District- Deoria.

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

3. The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that Sanjay Prasad, the husband of the informant, was a tempo driver and on account of some dispute between the deceased and accused Sonu Yadav and Dhananjay Yadav for overtaking the vehicle, both the accused persons hurled abuses and caste related remarks and threatening for life made serious assault with intention to kill upon the head of Sanjay Prasad, who fell down and sustained serious injuries. At the time of incident five persons were travelling in the tempo and two of them also sustained injuries. Baburam, Deepak Kumar, Ramashankar and several other persons witnessed the incident. The injured persons were taken to the hospital. Sanjay Prasad was referred for medical college, Gauribazar but during treatment he expired. FIR was lodged and after initiation of prosecution now the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against them. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted there is absolutely no eyewitness of the alleged occurrence. No motive of assault has been assigned in the FIR or in the statement of witnesses for the accused persons to do away with the deceased. It is further submitted that all the alleged witnesses of fact of this case narrated before the I.O. that some local persons had identified the accused persons but however no such local person was introgated by the I.O., hence, there is absolutely no eyewitness of the incident. It is further submitted that no identification parade of the accused persons have been made by the I.O. The accused persons are having no criminal history to their credit. The alleged recovery of one brick on the pointing out of the accused persons is a false and fabricated story of prosecution. 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. Appellants are in jail since 22.5.2024. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

5. On the other hand, learned AGA vehemently opposed the appeal and bail application moved by the accused appellants and it has been submitted that the appellants committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 22.7.2024. It is further submitted that although the informant of this case is not an eyewitness of the incident but some local persons identified the accused persons on spot. The medical evidence corroborates the prosecution version and the injuries caused to the deceased might be inflicted by use of bricks and he has died due to comma as a result of ante mortem head injury as disclosed in the post mortem report. It is also submitted that the death of the deceased was caused by hitting his head with a brick and the same was retrieved by the police on the pointing out of the accused persons. It is also submitted that an altercation between the deceased and accused persons took place on the issue of over taking the vehicle. It is also submitted that the eyewitness Ram Chand Nishad, who was present at some distance from the spot corroborates the prosecution case and states that after some time he came to know the whereabouts and names of the accused persons and the same statement has been made by another eyewitness Ram Dinesh Yadav. It is further submitted that other witnesses Harikesh @ Mangru, Ajay, Sushil Kumar, Dharmendra, Sumit and Nikhil are also the eye-witnesses of the incident, who are the persons who were sitting in the tempo at the time of occurrence and they had made categorical statement that the assault on the deceased was made by use of brick by the accused appellants and their names were subsequently came to their knowledge. On these grounds prayer for dismissal of the appeal and rejection of the bail application has been made.

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 trial court has properly considered the case of the appellants while deciding the bail applications. 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, and the statement of witnesses, who were travelling in the tempo at the time of occurrence and who subsequently came to know the names of the accused persons, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have not made out a case for bail. The Court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail applications of the appellants. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity, perversity 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 appellants is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 8.1.2025 Fhd FAHAD NIYAZ FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad