Allahabad High Court
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10448 of 2024 Rahul State of U.P. and Another Versus .....Appellant(s) .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s) Sarve Nazir, Zafar Abbas : : G.A., Manish Shukla Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State, and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the lower court record. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed challenging the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Bareilly, whereby the IInd bail application of the appellant Vinay was rejected in Case Crime No.547 of 2023, under Sections 302, 307, 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly. 3. The prosecution story is that on 16.07.2023, the complainant, belongs to Scheduled Caste community, alleged that Jagmohan @ Tannu and Bhagwanswarup @ Lale, residents of Mohalla Gangapur, were running an illegal gambling den. When the son of the informant complained against them, they conspired to falsely implicate him in a criminal case and sent him to jail. After his release, animosity continued. On 15.07.2023, when the son of the informant was going near a Transformer, the present appellant Rahul along with co- accused Vinay and Nitin intercepted him, threatened him by saying: "You are making a lot of complaints against Jagmohan and Bhagwan Swarup, you don't know that they are gambling king and on their
Legal Reasoning
saying, we are here to finish you". Thereafter, all three accused fired upon the son of the informant with country-made pistols, resulting in 2 CRLA No. 10448 of 2024 his death on the spot. The incident was witnessed by Lucky, Chandan and Brijkishore. Consequently, FIR was lodged against accused Rahul, Nitin, Jagmohan @ Tannu, Bhagwan Swarup and Vinay. 4. After investigation, charge sheets were submitted against the accused persons: Vinay and Nitin under Sections 302, 120-B, 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act and Section 3/25 Arms Act; Rahul under Sections 302, 120-B, 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act; Bhagwan Swarup @ Laley under Sections 302, 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act; and Jagmohan @ Tannu through supplementary charge sheet under Sections 302, 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Rahul is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to local rivalry. It is submitted that FIR is belated; that the deceased himself was a history-sheeter and could have been killed by unknown assailants; that only interested witnesses support the case and there are contradictions in prosecution version. It is also urged that the appellant has been implicated on suspicion, is in custody since 16.07.2023, and the trial is likely to take time. It is further contended that co-accused Jagmohan @ Tannu and Bhagwan Swaroop @ Lale have already been granted bail by this Court (Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:1285, order dated 04.01.2024 & Neutral Citation No 2024:AHC:4894, order dated 10.01.2024) and therefore, the appellant is also entitled to the same benefit. It is further submitted that there is no independent witness of the alleged recovery of country made pistol and cartridges from the possession of the appellant. It is further submitted that the informant alleges that he has received information from the alleged three eye witnesses but these eye witnesses have not made allegation against the appellant to make fire upon the deceased. It is further submitted that when the post-motem report came into knowledge of the prosecution in which the doctor opined about two gun shot injuries, thereafter the prosecution has changed their version and assigned the role of firing upon the appellant and other co accused persons whereas as per the whole prosecution version, 3 CRLA No. 10448 of 2024 there is no one who actually witness the incident in question. 6. Learned A.G.A. and counsel for the complainant opposed bail and contended that the appellant is specifically named in the FIR; eyewitnesses have assigned him role of firing; medical evidence corroborates ocular account; and since offence is against a Scheduled Caste victim, Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act is clearly attracted. It is further submitted that enlarging the appellant on bail would enable him to influence witnesses. 7. On careful examination, it is evident that appellant Rahul is specifically named in the FIR with clear role of firing upon the deceased along with co-accused Vinay and Nitin. His role is of direct participation in the murder. The eyewitness account directly implicates him, and the postmortem report corroborates the firearm injuries. 8. As regards submission that co-accused Jagmohan @ Tannu & Bhagwan Swaroop @ Lale have been granted bail, it is material to note that Jagmohan and Bhagwan Swaroop @ Lale were not assigned role of firing; his implication was based on alleged conspiracy. This Court while granting him bail found absence of direct evidence of conspiracy and distinguished his case. In contrast, appellant Rahul is attributed with overt act of firing, which constitutes principal role in the crime. Thus, parity with co accused cannot be claimed. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, held that while granting bail, the Court must consider nature of accusation, gravity of offence, evidence, and possibility of tampering. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496, it was reiterated that bail should not be granted unless the Court is satisfied of reasonable grounds of innocence. Moreover, in State of M.P. v. Ram Krishna Balothia (1995) 3 SCC 221, the Apex Court emphasized that stringent provisions of SC/ST Act should not be diluted casually. 10. In the present case, given the grave and specific allegations 4 CRLA No. 10448 of 2024 against appellant, his role being distinct and graver than co-accused who had already been enlarged on bail, and considering the possibility of witness tampering, no ground for bail is made out. 11. The criminal appeal filed by appellant Rahul under Section 14- A(2) of the SC/ST Act is hereby dismissed. September 11, 2025 RavindraKSingh (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad