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 - Kallu with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 29.7.2024 passed by the IInd Addl. District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat in bail application no.1765 of 2024 and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.397 of 1996 under Sections 147, 302 IPC and 3 (2) (5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar.

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

3. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on suspicion of theft of buffalo, Tarashanker, Mangoo, Ramkishan, Kallu and Pappu made an assault upon Pawan Kumar, the son of the informant, with lathi and danda, over which an altercation took place between both the sides and the aforesaid named accused persons came to the house of the informant and Sandeep Rao, the other son of the informant, was killed by them and the incident was seen by Neetu, the daughter of the informant. The accused persons threatened the entire family for dire consequences. On the basis of written report given by the informant, F.I.R. was lodged but after investigation, a closure report was submitted by the I.O. before the Court which was protested by the informant. The learned Court accepting the protest petition submitted by the informant rejected the final report and straightway summoned the accused persons Tarashanker, Mangoo, Ramkishan, Kallu and Pappu to face trial under Sections 147, 302 IPC and 3 (2) (5) S.C./S.T. Act.

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 confusing and it was not proved by any cogent evidence that Sandeep Rao, the son of the informant, was murdered by the accused persons. It is also submitted that the informant Prabhu Dayal, father of the deceased, himself gave an application to the police station on 21.11.1996 at about 10:00 P.M. that his son Sandeep Rao suddenly died because of heart failure. The postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was performed on 23.11.1996 wherein the cause of death was found ante mortem head injury. It is also submitted that subsequently, on the basis of consultation, another report was given on 25.11.1996 at P.S. Bilhaur, which was investigated and final report was submitted by the police. However, on the instructions of higher Police Officials, the matter was re-investigated and charge-sheet was submitted. It is also submitted that at the time of inquest proceedings, no visible injury was seen by any of the Panchas over the body of the deceased and it was opined that he has died due to heart failure. The police has submitted the charge-sheet on wrong and erroneous grounds. It is also submitted that five persons have been alleged to make assault upon the son of the informant but surprisingly he has received only one injury over his head which is not natural. In the postmortem report, the chamber of the heart was found empty and other conditions of the body of the deceased denoted that it was a natural death caused due to heart failure. It is also submitted that the accused persons were directly summoned by the Magistrate on the basis of the protest petition of the informant which was not legally correct way. It is also submitted that according to the F.I.R., the other son of the informant Pawan Kumar was bitterly beaten by the accused persons but however no injury report of Pawan Kumar is available on record. It is also submitted that an Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.6518 of 2003 was moved before this Court wherein interim protection was granted by this Court but however it was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 19.7.2023 by the coordinate Bench of this Court. It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Kanpur Dehat. It is further submitted that 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. 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. The appellant is having no criminal history to his credit. On the aforesaid ground it has been submitted that the present appeal deserved to be allowed.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that since only one injury was caused to the deceased, the informant could not see it and that is why he informed the police that his son was died due to heart failure. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate was fully competent to reject the final report submitted by the police and to summon the accused persons straightway to face trial. It is also submitted that for taking revenge of theft of buffalo, the accused persons in anger and anguish took the revenge from the informant by murder of his son. It is also submitted that the eyewitness Neetu supports the prosecution version. It is also submitted that the first informant and his family members were very much afraid of the accused persons and that caused delay in lodging of the F.I.R. It is also submitted that in the postmortem report, it has been opined that the cause of death was coma due to head injury. The doctor has found a contused swelling 6 cm. x 5 cm. on right side of head just above the right ear alongwith parietal bone fracture. It is a case of daylight murder of the young son of the informant who belonged to S.C./S.T. community. The appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is also submitted that the deceased 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 impugned order carefully.

7. After considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the evidence available on record and also considering the fact that it is a day light murder at a public place and the accused persons being native of the same village were fully aware of the fact that the deceased belonged to the marginal section of the society and he was a member of the SC/ST community, the Court is of the view that no case is made out to release the appellant on bail. The Court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity 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 present criminal appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 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 - Kallu with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 29.7.2024 passed by the IInd Addl. District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Dehat in bail application no.1765 of 2024 and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.397 of 1996 under Sections 147, 302 IPC and 3 (2) (5) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bilhaur, District Kanpur Nagar.

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

3. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on suspicion of theft of buffalo, Tarashanker, Mangoo, Ramkishan, Kallu and Pappu made an assault upon Pawan Kumar, the son of the informant, with lathi and danda, over which an altercation took place between both the sides and the aforesaid named accused persons came to the house of the informant and Sandeep Rao, the other son of the informant, was killed by them and the incident was seen by Neetu, the daughter of the informant. The accused persons threatened the entire family for dire consequences. On the basis of written report given by the informant, F.I.R. was lodged but after investigation, a closure report was submitted by the I.O. before the Court which was protested by the informant. The learned Court accepting the protest petition submitted by the informant rejected the final report and straightway summoned the accused persons Tarashanker, Mangoo, Ramkishan, Kallu and Pappu to face trial under Sections 147, 302 IPC and 3 (2) (5) S.C./S.T. Act.

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 confusing and it was not proved by any cogent evidence that Sandeep Rao, the son of the informant, was murdered by the accused persons. It is also submitted that the informant Prabhu Dayal, father of the deceased, himself gave an application to the police station on 21.11.1996 at about 10:00 P.M. that his son Sandeep Rao suddenly died because of heart failure. The postmortem of the dead body of the deceased was performed on 23.11.1996 wherein the cause of death was found ante mortem head injury. It is also submitted that subsequently, on the basis of consultation, another report was given on 25.11.1996 at P.S. Bilhaur, which was investigated and final report was submitted by the police. However, on the instructions of higher Police Officials, the matter was re-investigated and charge-sheet was submitted. It is also submitted that at the time of inquest proceedings, no visible injury was seen by any of the Panchas over the body of the deceased and it was opined that he has died due to heart failure. The police has submitted the charge-sheet on wrong and erroneous grounds. It is also submitted that five persons have been alleged to make assault upon the son of the informant but surprisingly he has received only one injury over his head which is not natural. In the postmortem report, the chamber of the heart was found empty and other conditions of the body of the deceased denoted that it was a natural death caused due to heart failure. It is also submitted that the accused persons were directly summoned by the Magistrate on the basis of the protest petition of the informant which was not legally correct way. It is also submitted that according to the F.I.R., the other son of the informant Pawan Kumar was bitterly beaten by the accused persons but however no injury report of Pawan Kumar is available on record. It is also submitted that an Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.6518 of 2003 was moved before this Court wherein interim protection was granted by this Court but however it was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 19.7.2023 by the coordinate Bench of this Court. It is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Kanpur Dehat. It is further submitted that 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. 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. The appellant is having no criminal history to his credit. On the aforesaid ground it has been submitted that the present appeal deserved to be allowed.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that since only one injury was caused to the deceased, the informant could not see it and that is why he informed the police that his son was died due to heart failure. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate was fully competent to reject the final report submitted by the police and to summon the accused persons straightway to face trial. It is also submitted that for taking revenge of theft of buffalo, the accused persons in anger and anguish took the revenge from the informant by murder of his son. It is also submitted that the eyewitness Neetu supports the prosecution version. It is also submitted that the first informant and his family members were very much afraid of the accused persons and that caused delay in lodging of the F.I.R. It is also submitted that in the postmortem report, it has been opined that the cause of death was coma due to head injury. The doctor has found a contused swelling 6 cm. x 5 cm. on right side of head just above the right ear alongwith parietal bone fracture. It is a case of daylight murder of the young son of the informant who belonged to S.C./S.T. community. The appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. It is also submitted that the deceased 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 impugned order carefully.

7. After considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the evidence available on record and also considering the fact that it is a day light murder at a public place and the accused persons being native of the same village were fully aware of the fact that the deceased belonged to the marginal section of the society and he was a member of the SC/ST community, the Court is of the view that no case is made out to release the appellant on bail. The Court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity 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 present criminal appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad