High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

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

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Kapil Baisoya with the prayer to allow this second criminal appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 16.8.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) / Additional Session Judge, Ghaziabad and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 110 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Kaushambi, District Ghaziabad

3. The first criminal appeal no.4516 of 2024 of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.7.2024.

4. The prosecution story, as culled out from the F.I.R., is that an altercation took place between Ankit, the brother of the informant, who is a member of SC/ST community, and co-accused Rohit Baisoya during election and co-accused Rohit had also made firing during the incident and on account of said rivalry, on 4.3.2024 at about 8:00 A.M., co-accused Rohit and present appellant alongwith three unknown persons stopped the brother of the informant near EDM Mall in front of Angithi Cafe and hurled abuses by caste related remarks and when it was protested by Ankit, accused Rohit and Kapil made indiscriminate firing upon Ankit by pistols and the gunshot injuries were inflicted upon the neck, jaw, shoulder and chest of Ankit and then the accused persons fled away threatening him for life. Serious injuries were caused to the injured Ankit and he was taken to hospital. F.I.R. was lodged on the next day and ultimately charge-sheet was submitted in this matter.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and 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 essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are not established in this case. As per F.I.R. version, two persons opened indiscriminate firing over the injured but no serious injury was caused to him and he was discharged from the hospital only after three days. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of injured Ankit himself. He has made specific submission in his statement that he was not afraid of the accused persons and he never expected that they might open fire upon him. He has further stated that firing was opened upon him by co-accused Rohit Baisoya, which inflicted upon his cheek. The present appellant also opened fire and the other two unknown persons also opened fire upon him and he sustained a total of four gunshot injuries. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the statement made by the injured Ankit, nowhere it is found that the fire made by the appellant inflicted upon the injured. It is also submitted that prior to the lodging of the present F.I.R., an F.I.R. was lodged on 20.11.2023 against the informant and injured of this case from the accused side under sections 323, 384, 504, 506, 34, 307, 147, 148, 149 IPC by co-accused Rohit Baisoya and subsequently an F.I.R. was also lodged by co-accused Rohit Baisoya against the present informant and his associates on 29.2.2024. It is also submitted that on account of aforesaid animosity, the appellant has been falsely roped in this case. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 11.3.2024. Criminal antecedent of one solitary case against the appellant has been explained in the rejoinder affidavit. It is also submitted that there is no evidence on record at all that any fire was opened by the present appellant upon the injured, which inflicted upon the injured of this case. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution case in material terms.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that the present case is based on eyewitness account. The injured of this case has sustained serious injuries in the incident and he has gone under surgery three times. It is also submitted that the incident, as narrated in the F.I.R., finds support from the statement given by the injured witness and other witnesses. It is also submitted that the offence was committed due to previous enmity between the parties. The injured has sustained serious gunshot injuries and the medical report fully corroborates the prosecution version in this regard. It is also submitted that 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 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.

7. Keeping in view 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 medical report of the injured Ankit, previous animosity between the parties, the nature of injury and surgery relating to the injured Ankit, the statement given by the injured and other eyewitnesses to the I.O., the specific role of the present appellant, who opened fire upon the injured Ankit and the fact that the injured belongs to weaker section of the Society and a member of the SC/ST community 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 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 bail rejection order and release the accused appellant on bail.

8. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

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

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Kapil Baisoya with the prayer to allow this second criminal appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 16.8.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) / Additional Session Judge, Ghaziabad and release the appellant on bail in Case Crime No. 110 of 2024, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Kaushambi, District Ghaziabad

3. The first criminal appeal no.4516 of 2024 of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.7.2024.

4. The prosecution story, as culled out from the F.I.R., is that an altercation took place between Ankit, the brother of the informant, who is a member of SC/ST community, and co-accused Rohit Baisoya during election and co-accused Rohit had also made firing during the incident and on account of said rivalry, on 4.3.2024 at about 8:00 A.M., co-accused Rohit and present appellant alongwith three unknown persons stopped the brother of the informant near EDM Mall in front of Angithi Cafe and hurled abuses by caste related remarks and when it was protested by Ankit, accused Rohit and Kapil made indiscriminate firing upon Ankit by pistols and the gunshot injuries were inflicted upon the neck, jaw, shoulder and chest of Ankit and then the accused persons fled away threatening him for life. Serious injuries were caused to the injured Ankit and he was taken to hospital. F.I.R. was lodged on the next day and ultimately charge-sheet was submitted in this matter.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and 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 essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are not established in this case. As per F.I.R. version, two persons opened indiscriminate firing over the injured but no serious injury was caused to him and he was discharged from the hospital only after three days. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement of injured Ankit himself. He has made specific submission in his statement that he was not afraid of the accused persons and he never expected that they might open fire upon him. He has further stated that firing was opened upon him by co-accused Rohit Baisoya, which inflicted upon his cheek. The present appellant also opened fire and the other two unknown persons also opened fire upon him and he sustained a total of four gunshot injuries. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the statement made by the injured Ankit, nowhere it is found that the fire made by the appellant inflicted upon the injured. It is also submitted that prior to the lodging of the present F.I.R., an F.I.R. was lodged on 20.11.2023 against the informant and injured of this case from the accused side under sections 323, 384, 504, 506, 34, 307, 147, 148, 149 IPC by co-accused Rohit Baisoya and subsequently an F.I.R. was also lodged by co-accused Rohit Baisoya against the present informant and his associates on 29.2.2024. It is also submitted that on account of aforesaid animosity, the appellant has been falsely roped in this case. It is also submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 11.3.2024. Criminal antecedent of one solitary case against the appellant has been explained in the rejoinder affidavit. It is also submitted that there is no evidence on record at all that any fire was opened by the present appellant upon the injured, which inflicted upon the injured of this case. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution case in material terms.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the prayer for bail and it has been submitted that the present case is based on eyewitness account. The injured of this case has sustained serious injuries in the incident and he has gone under surgery three times. It is also submitted that the incident, as narrated in the F.I.R., finds support from the statement given by the injured witness and other witnesses. It is also submitted that the offence was committed due to previous enmity between the parties. The injured has sustained serious gunshot injuries and the medical report fully corroborates the prosecution version in this regard. It is also submitted that 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 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.

7. Keeping in view 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 medical report of the injured Ankit, previous animosity between the parties, the nature of injury and surgery relating to the injured Ankit, the statement given by the injured and other eyewitnesses to the I.O., the specific role of the present appellant, who opened fire upon the injured Ankit and the fact that the injured belongs to weaker section of the Society and a member of the SC/ST community 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 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 bail rejection order and release the accused appellant on bail.

8. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad