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 Bunty @ Mohammad Salim with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the leaned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kasganj and to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0889 of 2024, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 392, 411, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj.

3. The prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. is that on 06.12.2023 the deceased Veer Bahadur, brother of the informant Anar Singh, was driver and he was going to Lucknow loading some goods in his vehicle No. U.P. 83 BT 5887. On 09.12.2023 when the informant contacted on his mobile phone, it was found switched off. After search, the vehicle was found near Aisar Canter Etah/Kasganj road and some goods were also missing and his bag, clothes and other articles were also missing from the vehicle. A missing report was lodged by the informant on 13.12.2023 at 2.03 P.M. but he came to know that the accused Gurfan son of Shakir alongwith some other accused persons had kidnapped his brother and committed his murder. The F.I.R. was lodged on 22.12.2023 at 23.55. Investigation started and during investigation, the accused persons Gurfan, Mohd. Wasim and Shanu were arrested and they confessed their guilt to throw the dead-body of the deceased in canal. However, after investigation, charge sheet was submitted in this case.

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 the appellant is not named in the F.I.R. and no strong motive has been assigned to him by the prosecution to commit the alleged offence. It is next submitted that the deceased was stranger and he was also driver of the said vehicle and the appellant had absolutely no motive to commit the murder of the deceased. It is also submitted that no incriminating material or even the dead body of the deceased was recovered on the pointing out of the appellant. It is further submitted that there is no cogent evidence collected by the Investigating Officer against the present appellant. It is next submitted that even the last seen evidence is not available on record in this matter. It is next submitted that 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 also submitted that the appellant has two criminal antecedents which have been explained in the supplementary affidavit. The appellant is languishing in jail since 14.03.2024. 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 there was no possibility of false implication of the appellant because ample evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation against the appellant and the accused persons have also confessed their guilt. It is further submitted that although it is admitted fact of the prosecution that the dead body of the deceased could not be recovered but on the pointing out of the accused persons, police made efforts to recover the dead body of the deceased. C.D.R. report has been collected by the Investigating Officer which confirms the presence of the appellant alongwith other co-accused persons near the canal and also to throw the clothes wearing over the dead body of the deceased. The C.D.R. shows that the accused persons were seen alongwith deceased. It is next submitted that the goods which were missing from the truck were also recovered on the pointing of the co-accused. It is also submitted that the offence is very grave and serious and the accused persons were having grudge with the deceased who used to inform the police about the illegal activities of the accused persons and that was the motive for the accused appellant to commit the alleged offence.

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, incarceration period of the appellant, the absence of essential ingredients necessary to prove the guilt in a case based on circumstantial evidence, 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- Bunty @ Mohammad Salim 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 he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he 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 :- 17.5.2025 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 Bunty @ Mohammad Salim with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the leaned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kasganj and to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 0889 of 2024, under Sections 364, 302, 201, 392, 411, 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kasganj, District Kasganj.

3. The prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. is that on 06.12.2023 the deceased Veer Bahadur, brother of the informant Anar Singh, was driver and he was going to Lucknow loading some goods in his vehicle No. U.P. 83 BT 5887. On 09.12.2023 when the informant contacted on his mobile phone, it was found switched off. After search, the vehicle was found near Aisar Canter Etah/Kasganj road and some goods were also missing and his bag, clothes and other articles were also missing from the vehicle. A missing report was lodged by the informant on 13.12.2023 at 2.03 P.M. but he came to know that the accused Gurfan son of Shakir alongwith some other accused persons had kidnapped his brother and committed his murder. The F.I.R. was lodged on 22.12.2023 at 23.55. Investigation started and during investigation, the accused persons Gurfan, Mohd. Wasim and Shanu were arrested and they confessed their guilt to throw the dead-body of the deceased in canal. However, after investigation, charge sheet was submitted in this case.

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 the appellant is not named in the F.I.R. and no strong motive has been assigned to him by the prosecution to commit the alleged offence. It is next submitted that the deceased was stranger and he was also driver of the said vehicle and the appellant had absolutely no motive to commit the murder of the deceased. It is also submitted that no incriminating material or even the dead body of the deceased was recovered on the pointing out of the appellant. It is further submitted that there is no cogent evidence collected by the Investigating Officer against the present appellant. It is next submitted that even the last seen evidence is not available on record in this matter. It is next submitted that 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 also submitted that the appellant has two criminal antecedents which have been explained in the supplementary affidavit. The appellant is languishing in jail since 14.03.2024. 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 there was no possibility of false implication of the appellant because ample evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation against the appellant and the accused persons have also confessed their guilt. It is further submitted that although it is admitted fact of the prosecution that the dead body of the deceased could not be recovered but on the pointing out of the accused persons, police made efforts to recover the dead body of the deceased. C.D.R. report has been collected by the Investigating Officer which confirms the presence of the appellant alongwith other co-accused persons near the canal and also to throw the clothes wearing over the dead body of the deceased. The C.D.R. shows that the accused persons were seen alongwith deceased. It is next submitted that the goods which were missing from the truck were also recovered on the pointing of the co-accused. It is also submitted that the offence is very grave and serious and the accused persons were having grudge with the deceased who used to inform the police about the illegal activities of the accused persons and that was the motive for the accused appellant to commit the alleged offence.

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, incarceration period of the appellant, the absence of essential ingredients necessary to prove the guilt in a case based on circumstantial evidence, 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- Bunty @ Mohammad Salim 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 he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he 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 :- 17.5.2025 Rmk. RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad