High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Despite service of notice, none is present on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant Prabhawati with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 16.09.2024 passed by the leaned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sonbhadra and to release her on bail in Case Crime No.112 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Chopan, District Sonbhadra.

3. The prosecution story, as culled out from the F.I.R., is that on 03.06.2024 Rajgrih @ Sanjay @ Kanta, husband of the informant, left his house about 12-13 years before leaving his wife informant Laxminiya. The informant got an information on 02.06.2024 that an unknown body of the deceased person was lying near railway line in a bag. She identified the dead body of her husband in the mortuary house and alleged that about 12-13 years before her husband was living with one Prabhawati Devi and suspicion was made in the F.I.R. upon Prabhawati Devi and her son Ajay Kumar for committing murder of her husband and also throwing his dead body in a canal. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that this case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no one to claim that the appellant was seen with the deceased sometime before the occurrence. It is next submitted that if the deceased had been living with the appellant for about 12-13 years, there was no motive for the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased in criminal conspiracy with her son Ajay Kumar. It is also submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion and confessional statement of co-accused Ajay Kumar. It is further submitted that no incriminating articles were retrieved by the police on the pointing out or from the possession of the appellant, rather the alleged articles were received on the pointing out of co-accused Ajay Kumar. It is next submitted that although the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 31.05.2024 but postmortem was belatedly performed on 03.06.2024. It is also submitted that in the postmortem report, cause of death has been found asphyxia due to ante mortem injuries leading to coma. It is further submitted that there is no witness for the prosecution to explain that the said offence was committed by the present appellant. It is next submitted that except ligature mark, no other external injury was found on the body of the deceased whereas the doctor in the postmortem report has opined that his death was caused not only due to asphyxia but ante-mortem injuries as well. It is also submitted that the appellant is lady and languishing in jail since 04.06.2024 having no criminal antecedent to her credit and she had no motive to do away with a person who had been living with her as husband. 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.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the present appeal and it has been submitted that co-accused Ajay Kumar, son of the accused appellant, has explained in his statement to the police when he was interrogated by the Investigating Officer that since the deceased used to beat her mother sometimes, that was the reason he caused murder of the deceased alongwith his mother Prabhawati in the night of 28.05.2024 by strangulating with the aid of Gamachha and the dead body was concealed near underpass culvert and rope and gamachha were also hidden in the bushes. It is next submitted that accordingly the aforesaid articles were retrieved by the police on the pointing out of the co-accused Ajay Kumar. It is also submitted that there is no possibility for false implication of the accused appellant for the offence of murder. On the aforesaid grounds, a prayer has been made to dismiss the present appeal.

5. 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.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, and also keeping in view the fact that the deceased was living with the appellant on his own free will for about last 13 years and no cogent motive has been assigned to the appellant to do away with the deceased, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside.

8. Let the appellant- Prabhawati involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Rmk. RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Despite service of notice, none is present on behalf of opposite party no. 2.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant Prabhawati with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 16.09.2024 passed by the leaned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Sonbhadra and to release her on bail in Case Crime No.112 of 2024, under Sections 302, 201 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Chopan, District Sonbhadra.

3. The prosecution story, as culled out from the F.I.R., is that on 03.06.2024 Rajgrih @ Sanjay @ Kanta, husband of the informant, left his house about 12-13 years before leaving his wife informant Laxminiya. The informant got an information on 02.06.2024 that an unknown body of the deceased person was lying near railway line in a bag. She identified the dead body of her husband in the mortuary house and alleged that about 12-13 years before her husband was living with one Prabhawati Devi and suspicion was made in the F.I.R. upon Prabhawati Devi and her son Ajay Kumar for committing murder of her husband and also throwing his dead body in a canal. F.I.R. was lodged and investigation started.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that this case is based on circumstantial evidence. There is no one to claim that the appellant was seen with the deceased sometime before the occurrence. It is next submitted that if the deceased had been living with the appellant for about 12-13 years, there was no motive for the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased in criminal conspiracy with her son Ajay Kumar. It is also submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of suspicion and confessional statement of co-accused Ajay Kumar. It is further submitted that no incriminating articles were retrieved by the police on the pointing out or from the possession of the appellant, rather the alleged articles were received on the pointing out of co-accused Ajay Kumar. It is next submitted that although the dead body of the deceased was recovered on 31.05.2024 but postmortem was belatedly performed on 03.06.2024. It is also submitted that in the postmortem report, cause of death has been found asphyxia due to ante mortem injuries leading to coma. It is further submitted that there is no witness for the prosecution to explain that the said offence was committed by the present appellant. It is next submitted that except ligature mark, no other external injury was found on the body of the deceased whereas the doctor in the postmortem report has opined that his death was caused not only due to asphyxia but ante-mortem injuries as well. It is also submitted that the appellant is lady and languishing in jail since 04.06.2024 having no criminal antecedent to her credit and she had no motive to do away with a person who had been living with her as husband. 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.

4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the present appeal and it has been submitted that co-accused Ajay Kumar, son of the accused appellant, has explained in his statement to the police when he was interrogated by the Investigating Officer that since the deceased used to beat her mother sometimes, that was the reason he caused murder of the deceased alongwith his mother Prabhawati in the night of 28.05.2024 by strangulating with the aid of Gamachha and the dead body was concealed near underpass culvert and rope and gamachha were also hidden in the bushes. It is next submitted that accordingly the aforesaid articles were retrieved by the police on the pointing out of the co-accused Ajay Kumar. It is also submitted that there is no possibility for false implication of the accused appellant for the offence of murder. On the aforesaid grounds, a prayer has been made to dismiss the present appeal.

5. 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.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, and also keeping in view the fact that the deceased was living with the appellant on his own free will for about last 13 years and no cogent motive has been assigned to the appellant to do away with the deceased, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside.

8. Let the appellant- Prabhawati involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (iv) The appellants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which she is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

9. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 15.5.2025 Rmk. RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad