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 Jyotsna against the bail rejection order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Shamli in Case Crime No. 238 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C and under Sections 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kairana, District Shamli.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA and perused the entire record.

3. The prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. is that on 30.04.2024 at 6:30 pm Amit the young brother of the informant Amarjeet was taken away by Aman Tyagi, Ankush Tyagi, Ankush @ Lambu and Jyotsna by swift desire car for Haridwar, but subsequently they committed murder of Amit and his dead body was hidden near sugarcane field of Tauhid son of Jamil on 01.05.2024. The informant identified the body of his deceased brother at postmortem house Shamli and the named F.I.R against four accused persons were lodged on 02.05.2024.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against her. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that there is no evidence against the present appellant at all. The whole story of last seen together put forward by the prosecution is a false and bogus story. No incriminating material has been retrieved on the pointing out of the accused-appellant. It is also submitted that although the police claims the recovery of swift desire car on pointing out of co-accused Ankush Tyagi but the present accused-appellant has no concern with this. The police tried to falsely implicate the present accused-appellant on the sole ground that a ladies purse was recovered from that car but it was nowhere disclosed by the police as to how the police belonged came to know that the said purse belonged to the present accused- appellant. It is further submitted that the accused-appellant is a lady and she is having no criminal history to her credit and she is languishing in jail since 07.05.2024. The accused/appellant is entitled for bail by allowing the present criminal appeal. 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.

5. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the appeal and bail application moved by the accused/appellant and it has been submitted that there is reliable and consistent evidence of last seen together against the present appellant. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact the co-accused Aman Tyagi was living in relation with the present appellant and they were in dire need of money and when they came to know that the deceased had a handsome amount in his bank account, all the accused persons in criminal conspiracy made a plan to take away the deceased to Haridwar and to make a bank transaction to grab his money after putting him in a state of inebriation. It is also submitted that accordingly all the accused persons took away the deceased and as planed when the deceased was in a state of inebriation he was beaten by co-accused persons and then he disclosed the bank password to co-accused Ankush Tyagi who made Rs. 1 lac transferred into his account from the bank account of the deceased but the accused persons were apprehending that their act might be disclosed by the deceased hence, co-accused Ankush Taygi strangulated the deceased and other co-accused persons including the present appellant were catching hold of the body of the deceased and with a view to disappeare the evidence the dead body was thrown in a sugarcane field and they fled away to Delhi in Swift Desire Car of deceased. It is further submitted that the same statements have been given by the accused persons before the police. Since the present appellant was also working in furtherance of common intention of all the accused persons, she is equally liable for the offence of murder of the deceased. In the postmortem report the cause of death has been found asphyxia due to throttling and viscera was also preserved. It is also submitted that the postmortem was conducted on

01.05.2024 at about 5:20 pm and it was opined by the doctor that the death of the deceased was probably caused about 1 to 1 and 1/2 days before since the deceased was taken away from his house by accused persons on 30.04.2024 at 6:30 pm, the time of death and the 'last seen together' evidence tally with each other. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 21.08.2024.

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. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and deposition before the court, the role of the accused/appellant, the peculiar circumstances of this case, the involvement of the accused- appellant, the recovery of incriminating articles, no possibility of her false implication at this stage and also considering that most of the issues raised by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant relate to the merits of the case which cannot be met out at this stage and only period of incarceration of the accused/appellant is not sufficient for granting bail to him in the instant case of gruesome murder, I do not find any force in the appeal. No illegality, infirmity or perversity has been found in the impugned order dated 21.08.2024.

8. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Vikram VIKRAM SINGH 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 Jyotsna against the bail rejection order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the Additional Session Judge/Special Judge SC/ST Act, Shamli in Case Crime No. 238 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C and under Sections 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kairana, District Shamli.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA and perused the entire record.

3. The prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. is that on 30.04.2024 at 6:30 pm Amit the young brother of the informant Amarjeet was taken away by Aman Tyagi, Ankush Tyagi, Ankush @ Lambu and Jyotsna by swift desire car for Haridwar, but subsequently they committed murder of Amit and his dead body was hidden near sugarcane field of Tauhid son of Jamil on 01.05.2024. The informant identified the body of his deceased brother at postmortem house Shamli and the named F.I.R against four accused persons were lodged on 02.05.2024.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against her. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that there is no evidence against the present appellant at all. The whole story of last seen together put forward by the prosecution is a false and bogus story. No incriminating material has been retrieved on the pointing out of the accused-appellant. It is also submitted that although the police claims the recovery of swift desire car on pointing out of co-accused Ankush Tyagi but the present accused-appellant has no concern with this. The police tried to falsely implicate the present accused-appellant on the sole ground that a ladies purse was recovered from that car but it was nowhere disclosed by the police as to how the police belonged came to know that the said purse belonged to the present accused- appellant. It is further submitted that the accused-appellant is a lady and she is having no criminal history to her credit and she is languishing in jail since 07.05.2024. The accused/appellant is entitled for bail by allowing the present criminal appeal. 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.

5. Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the appeal and bail application moved by the accused/appellant and it has been submitted that there is reliable and consistent evidence of last seen together against the present appellant. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact the co-accused Aman Tyagi was living in relation with the present appellant and they were in dire need of money and when they came to know that the deceased had a handsome amount in his bank account, all the accused persons in criminal conspiracy made a plan to take away the deceased to Haridwar and to make a bank transaction to grab his money after putting him in a state of inebriation. It is also submitted that accordingly all the accused persons took away the deceased and as planed when the deceased was in a state of inebriation he was beaten by co-accused persons and then he disclosed the bank password to co-accused Ankush Tyagi who made Rs. 1 lac transferred into his account from the bank account of the deceased but the accused persons were apprehending that their act might be disclosed by the deceased hence, co-accused Ankush Taygi strangulated the deceased and other co-accused persons including the present appellant were catching hold of the body of the deceased and with a view to disappeare the evidence the dead body was thrown in a sugarcane field and they fled away to Delhi in Swift Desire Car of deceased. It is further submitted that the same statements have been given by the accused persons before the police. Since the present appellant was also working in furtherance of common intention of all the accused persons, she is equally liable for the offence of murder of the deceased. In the postmortem report the cause of death has been found asphyxia due to throttling and viscera was also preserved. It is also submitted that the postmortem was conducted on

01.05.2024 at about 5:20 pm and it was opined by the doctor that the death of the deceased was probably caused about 1 to 1 and 1/2 days before since the deceased was taken away from his house by accused persons on 30.04.2024 at 6:30 pm, the time of death and the 'last seen together' evidence tally with each other. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 21.08.2024.

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. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer and deposition before the court, the role of the accused/appellant, the peculiar circumstances of this case, the involvement of the accused- appellant, the recovery of incriminating articles, no possibility of her false implication at this stage and also considering that most of the issues raised by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant relate to the merits of the case which cannot be met out at this stage and only period of incarceration of the accused/appellant is not sufficient for granting bail to him in the instant case of gruesome murder, I do not find any force in the appeal. No illegality, infirmity or perversity has been found in the impugned order dated 21.08.2024.

8. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Vikram VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad