Sheebu Zunaid v. State of U.P.) and

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/informant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

3. The above two connected Criminal Appeals under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been preferred by the appellants - Sheebu @ Zunaid and Arsheel @ Amaan with the prayer to allow the appeals and set aside the bail rejection orders dated 25.09.2024 (Sheebu @ Zunaid Vs. State of U.P.) and 07.11.2024 (Arsheel @ Amaan Vs. State of U.P.) passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mahoba and release the appellants on bail in Case Crime No.350 of 2024 under Sections 115 (2), 352, 103(1), 3 (5) of B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5A) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mahoba.

4. Since both the connected criminal appeals arise out of same crime number and relate to the same controversy, they are being disposed of by a common order.

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 16/17.7.2024 at about 1:30 A.M. when Amit Verma and Brijesh Kumar, the employees of the informant, were present at the office of reliance petrol pump, two unknown persons came by motorcycle and asked to open the door of the office, which was refused by Amit, but after sometime when he opened the door, one of the accused took him out of the office, hurled abuses and started beating him, but anyhow Amit rescued himself and again came inside the office and closed the door. Meanwhile one unknown person forcibly smashed the glass door of the office and due to which the broken glass of the door got stuck in Amit's neck, who sustained serious injuries and became unconscious. Both the unknown accused persons fled away from the spot. The injured was taken to the hospital and the said incident was captured in the CCTV. On the very next day in the morning, F.I.R. was lodged against unknown accused persons and subsequently after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in this matter.

6. 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. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the S.C./S.T. Act are lacking in this matter, therefore no case under the S.C./S.T. Act is made out against the appellants. It is also submitted that the appellants are not named in the F.I.R. and no identification parade has been conducted by the I.O. of this case. It is also submitted that during investigation in his subsequent statement, which was recorded very belatedly, the informant disclosed the name of the appellants as assailants. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement made by the injured and eyewitness Brijesh Kumar. It is also submitted that charge-sheet in this matter was submitted under Sections 115 (2), 352, 103(1), 3 (5) of B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5A) of S.C./S.T. Act. It is also submitted that the present case is never connected with the murder of the deceased. It is true that the deceased was a member of the weaker section of the Society and belonged to S.C./S.T. Community but no caste related remarks or abuses were hurled to him by the appellants because the deceased was unknown for them. It is also submitted that how the informant came to know the names of the appellants, has not been clarified by the prosecution. It is also submitted that except the motorcycle, no other incriminating article had been recovered on the pointing out of the appellants. It is also submitted that after so many days, consequent upon the incident, death of the deceased was caused on 20.7.2024 whereas the alleged assault was made on 17.7.2024. It is also submitted that the cause of death has been opined by the doctor as injuries over the neck of the deceased. It is also submitted that the appellants had absolutely no motive to commit the crime and the crime, if any, was occurred in the spur of moment and was a result of grave and sudden provocation, which cannot be termed as murder at all. It is also submitted that the appellants are languishing in jail since 20.7.2024 having no criminal antecedents to their credit. It is also submitted that the court concerned while passing the impugned orders 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 orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellants suffer from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/informant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the present appeal and it is submitted that at the time of incident, the accused persons were not identified by the informant or injured but subsequently during the course of investigation, the name of both the accused appellants came into light. The injured person died during investigation on account of his injuries sustained in the incident by a broken glass and that is why the offence was amended for other serious sections. It is also submitted that Brijesh Kumar, the associate of the deceased, has corroborated the prosecution version in his statement given to the I.O. The offence of the accused appellants is very serious. It is also submitted that the deceased was a member of the weaker section of the Society and belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. The appellants committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to SC/ST community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The appellants are not entitled for any relaxation and their bail applications are liable to be rejected and the appeals having no force are liable to be dismissed.

8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the bail rejection orders carefully.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the rival submissions made by the parties, nature of offence, complicity of accused and also considering the fact that the deceased belonged to SC/ST community and a serious injury was caused to him by the accused appellants in furtherance of common intention of both the appellants; that there was no possibility of any false implication of the appellants; that ample evidence has been collected by the I.O. regarding the active participation of both the appellants in the commission of the crime; that not only by the eyewitness but by the CCTV footage as well the accused appellants have been sufficiently identified and keeping in view the gravity and seriousness of the offence wherein one person lost his life, this Court finds that no ground is made out to allow the appeals, set- aside the anticipatory bail rejection orders and release the accused appellants on bail.

10. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/informant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record.

3. The above two connected Criminal Appeals under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been preferred by the appellants - Sheebu @ Zunaid and Arsheel @ Amaan with the prayer to allow the appeals and set aside the bail rejection orders dated 25.09.2024 (Sheebu @ Zunaid Vs. State of U.P.) and 07.11.2024 (Arsheel @ Amaan Vs. State of U.P.) passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mahoba and release the appellants on bail in Case Crime No.350 of 2024 under Sections 115 (2), 352, 103(1), 3 (5) of B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5A) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Mahoba.

4. Since both the connected criminal appeals arise out of same crime number and relate to the same controversy, they are being disposed of by a common order.

5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 16/17.7.2024 at about 1:30 A.M. when Amit Verma and Brijesh Kumar, the employees of the informant, were present at the office of reliance petrol pump, two unknown persons came by motorcycle and asked to open the door of the office, which was refused by Amit, but after sometime when he opened the door, one of the accused took him out of the office, hurled abuses and started beating him, but anyhow Amit rescued himself and again came inside the office and closed the door. Meanwhile one unknown person forcibly smashed the glass door of the office and due to which the broken glass of the door got stuck in Amit's neck, who sustained serious injuries and became unconscious. Both the unknown accused persons fled away from the spot. The injured was taken to the hospital and the said incident was captured in the CCTV. On the very next day in the morning, F.I.R. was lodged against unknown accused persons and subsequently after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in this matter.

6. 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. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. It is also submitted that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the S.C./S.T. Act are lacking in this matter, therefore no case under the S.C./S.T. Act is made out against the appellants. It is also submitted that the appellants are not named in the F.I.R. and no identification parade has been conducted by the I.O. of this case. It is also submitted that during investigation in his subsequent statement, which was recorded very belatedly, the informant disclosed the name of the appellants as assailants. It is also submitted that the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution version. It is also submitted that there are material contradictions in the statement made by the injured and eyewitness Brijesh Kumar. It is also submitted that charge-sheet in this matter was submitted under Sections 115 (2), 352, 103(1), 3 (5) of B.N.S. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5), 3(2)(5A) of S.C./S.T. Act. It is also submitted that the present case is never connected with the murder of the deceased. It is true that the deceased was a member of the weaker section of the Society and belonged to S.C./S.T. Community but no caste related remarks or abuses were hurled to him by the appellants because the deceased was unknown for them. It is also submitted that how the informant came to know the names of the appellants, has not been clarified by the prosecution. It is also submitted that except the motorcycle, no other incriminating article had been recovered on the pointing out of the appellants. It is also submitted that after so many days, consequent upon the incident, death of the deceased was caused on 20.7.2024 whereas the alleged assault was made on 17.7.2024. It is also submitted that the cause of death has been opined by the doctor as injuries over the neck of the deceased. It is also submitted that the appellants had absolutely no motive to commit the crime and the crime, if any, was occurred in the spur of moment and was a result of grave and sudden provocation, which cannot be termed as murder at all. It is also submitted that the appellants are languishing in jail since 20.7.2024 having no criminal antecedents to their credit. It is also submitted that the court concerned while passing the impugned orders 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 orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellants suffer from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/informant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the present appeal and it is submitted that at the time of incident, the accused persons were not identified by the informant or injured but subsequently during the course of investigation, the name of both the accused appellants came into light. The injured person died during investigation on account of his injuries sustained in the incident by a broken glass and that is why the offence was amended for other serious sections. It is also submitted that Brijesh Kumar, the associate of the deceased, has corroborated the prosecution version in his statement given to the I.O. The offence of the accused appellants is very serious. It is also submitted that the deceased was a member of the weaker section of the Society and belonged to S.C./S.T. Community. The appellants committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to SC/ST community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The appellants are not entitled for any relaxation and their bail applications are liable to be rejected and the appeals having no force are liable to be dismissed.

8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the bail rejection orders carefully.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the rival submissions made by the parties, nature of offence, complicity of accused and also considering the fact that the deceased belonged to SC/ST community and a serious injury was caused to him by the accused appellants in furtherance of common intention of both the appellants; that there was no possibility of any false implication of the appellants; that ample evidence has been collected by the I.O. regarding the active participation of both the appellants in the commission of the crime; that not only by the eyewitness but by the CCTV footage as well the accused appellants have been sufficiently identified and keeping in view the gravity and seriousness of the offence wherein one person lost his life, this Court finds that no ground is made out to allow the appeals, set- aside the anticipatory bail rejection orders and release the accused appellants on bail.

10. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad