High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Shri Vinay Saran, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. These criminal appeals under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been preferred by the appellants - Prajwal Gupta Alias Ujala Gupta, Rajkumar Gupta, Santosh Kumar Gupta Alias Kaju Gupta with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection orders dated 11.11.2024, 19.11.2024 and 31.1.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mirzapur arising out of Case Crime No. 313 of 2024 under Sections 105, 115 (2), 117(2), 191 (2), 191 (3), 351 (2), 333, 352 of BNS. & Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Chunar, District- Mirzapur.

3. During investigation Section 117 (2) BNS was added to the matter and separate appeals have been filed by the present appellants for grant of bail in the added Section.

4. The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that on

22.10.2024 at about 6.00 am named accused persons along with some unknown persons came to the parental land of the informant by vehicles to take forcible possession of the land and hurled abuses to the informant and other persons of his side, threatened for life and also attacked with lathi, danda and spade by entering into the house of the informant. The informant, his brother, father, mother and his family members sustained serious injuries. They were medically examined. The father of the informant Ram Achal sustained very serious injuries and he was referred from C.H.C., Chunar to Zonal Hospital, Mirzapur and during treatment he died. FIR was lodged on the same day at about 11.22 am and after investigation charge sheet was submitted. The accused persons do not belong to SC/ST community whereas the informant belongs to SC/ST community.

5. 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. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case.

6. It is further submitted that the incident occurred in a spur of moment and in fact a free fight between two rival groups took place and the informant side was the aggressor. As a matter of fact a civil litigation is pending between both the parties for the land in dispute wherein a stay order is operative in favour of the appellants but on 22.10.2024 at about 6.00 am when the appellants along with the driver Pradip Chauhan were present over the said land, the named accused persons Ram Achal, Nisha, Ajit and Ravi reached there and made interference and also hurled abuses and made an assault with spade, lathi, danda, kicking and fisting upon Prajwal Gupta, Santosh Kumar Gupta and driver Pradip Chauhan and on their shrieks they fled away. The injured boys sustained injuries and the son of the informant Prajwal Gupta sustained serious injuries and became unconscious. FIR was lodged on 23.10.2024 at 9.54 am and investigation started and the injured persons were medically examined. It is also submitted that it was a case of sudden provocation which was resulted into unfortunate death of Ram Achal. It is also submitted that no specific role of any appellant is assigned to inflict grievous injuries to the deceased Ram Achal.

7.Another limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the prosecution has concealed the real facts of the matter and the factum of cross FIR in this case as well. Appellant Prajwal is a student and his testimonials have been annexed with the affidavit. It is also submitted that in the post mortem report of the deceased Ram Achal, four injuries have been shown but however only one head injury may be taken as fatal injury but who was the author of that injury has not been clarified by the prosecution witnesses. It is also submitted that the date, time and place of occurrence of both the cases are the same. It is vehemently submitted that the prosecution has utterly failed to explain the injuries caused to the appellants which was obligatory upon the prosecution. Three persons from the accused appellants side have sustained injuries and they have been medically examined on the same day. It is further submitted that the injured persons from the informant side have sustained simple injuries except injured Archana Devi who sustained fracture in one injury and the injuries of injured Kishmish Devi have been found normal in the x-ray and CT scan report. It is further submitted that ample evidence has been collected during investigation by the I.O. to the effect that both the sides made assault upon each other. It is further submitted that during investigation Section 117 (2) BNS was added to the matter and separate appeals have been filed by the present appellants for grant of bail in the added Section.

8. It is further urged 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. Appellants are in jail since 23.10.2024. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

9. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the accused persons/ appellants are the resident of other village and since they were trying to take forcible possession over the land of the informant by force, the present incident occurred. It is also submitted that when the villagers chased the appellants they fled away and that is why in the said process they sustained injuries and the blame on the appellants that they attacked upon the informant side is totally false. It is also submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured persons from the appellant side are simple in nature. It also submitted that the incident occurred in the house of the informant which shows that the appellants party was the aggressor. It is further submitted that by way of some fictitious sale deed during pendency of the civil suit the land in question was purchased by the appellants and on the date of incident they came over there to take forcible possession of the same. Learned counsel further submitted that the theory of cross case put forward by the appellants is not true. The attack on the informant side was a deliberate act on the part of the appellants and the FIR was lodged by them was an after thought act of the appellants. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders dated 11.11.2024, 19.11.2024 and 31.1.2025. The death of the father of the informant has taken place in the said occurrence and they are not entitled for bail by way of allowing their criminal appeals.

10. 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.

11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, and the fact that the FIR was lodged by the appellants side prima facie reveals that the case in hand has a cross case as well and some persons from appellants side have also sustained injuries, the concealment of real facts regarding the very inception of the occurrence on the part of the prosecution, the pendency of civil dispute regarding the land in dispute between the parties and also that the death of the father of the informant was not caused intentionally and no specific evidence on record as to who was the author of the fatal injury caused to the deceased, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have 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.

12. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellants are, hereby, set- aside.

13. Let the above named appellants involved in the aforesaid crime 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 appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellants 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 they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. (v) The appellants 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.

14. 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 :- 30.5.2025 Fhd FAHAD NIYAZ FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Shri Vinay Saran, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. These criminal appeals under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been preferred by the appellants - Prajwal Gupta Alias Ujala Gupta, Rajkumar Gupta, Santosh Kumar Gupta Alias Kaju Gupta with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection orders dated 11.11.2024, 19.11.2024 and 31.1.2025 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Mirzapur arising out of Case Crime No. 313 of 2024 under Sections 105, 115 (2), 117(2), 191 (2), 191 (3), 351 (2), 333, 352 of BNS. & Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Chunar, District- Mirzapur.

3. During investigation Section 117 (2) BNS was added to the matter and separate appeals have been filed by the present appellants for grant of bail in the added Section.

4. The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that on

22.10.2024 at about 6.00 am named accused persons along with some unknown persons came to the parental land of the informant by vehicles to take forcible possession of the land and hurled abuses to the informant and other persons of his side, threatened for life and also attacked with lathi, danda and spade by entering into the house of the informant. The informant, his brother, father, mother and his family members sustained serious injuries. They were medically examined. The father of the informant Ram Achal sustained very serious injuries and he was referred from C.H.C., Chunar to Zonal Hospital, Mirzapur and during treatment he died. FIR was lodged on the same day at about 11.22 am and after investigation charge sheet was submitted. The accused persons do not belong to SC/ST community whereas the informant belongs to SC/ST community.

5. 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. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case.

6. It is further submitted that the incident occurred in a spur of moment and in fact a free fight between two rival groups took place and the informant side was the aggressor. As a matter of fact a civil litigation is pending between both the parties for the land in dispute wherein a stay order is operative in favour of the appellants but on 22.10.2024 at about 6.00 am when the appellants along with the driver Pradip Chauhan were present over the said land, the named accused persons Ram Achal, Nisha, Ajit and Ravi reached there and made interference and also hurled abuses and made an assault with spade, lathi, danda, kicking and fisting upon Prajwal Gupta, Santosh Kumar Gupta and driver Pradip Chauhan and on their shrieks they fled away. The injured boys sustained injuries and the son of the informant Prajwal Gupta sustained serious injuries and became unconscious. FIR was lodged on 23.10.2024 at 9.54 am and investigation started and the injured persons were medically examined. It is also submitted that it was a case of sudden provocation which was resulted into unfortunate death of Ram Achal. It is also submitted that no specific role of any appellant is assigned to inflict grievous injuries to the deceased Ram Achal.

7.Another limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the prosecution has concealed the real facts of the matter and the factum of cross FIR in this case as well. Appellant Prajwal is a student and his testimonials have been annexed with the affidavit. It is also submitted that in the post mortem report of the deceased Ram Achal, four injuries have been shown but however only one head injury may be taken as fatal injury but who was the author of that injury has not been clarified by the prosecution witnesses. It is also submitted that the date, time and place of occurrence of both the cases are the same. It is vehemently submitted that the prosecution has utterly failed to explain the injuries caused to the appellants which was obligatory upon the prosecution. Three persons from the accused appellants side have sustained injuries and they have been medically examined on the same day. It is further submitted that the injured persons from the informant side have sustained simple injuries except injured Archana Devi who sustained fracture in one injury and the injuries of injured Kishmish Devi have been found normal in the x-ray and CT scan report. It is further submitted that ample evidence has been collected during investigation by the I.O. to the effect that both the sides made assault upon each other. It is further submitted that during investigation Section 117 (2) BNS was added to the matter and separate appeals have been filed by the present appellants for grant of bail in the added Section.

8. It is further urged 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. Appellants are in jail since 23.10.2024. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellants suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

9. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the accused persons/ appellants are the resident of other village and since they were trying to take forcible possession over the land of the informant by force, the present incident occurred. It is also submitted that when the villagers chased the appellants they fled away and that is why in the said process they sustained injuries and the blame on the appellants that they attacked upon the informant side is totally false. It is also submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured persons from the appellant side are simple in nature. It also submitted that the incident occurred in the house of the informant which shows that the appellants party was the aggressor. It is further submitted that by way of some fictitious sale deed during pendency of the civil suit the land in question was purchased by the appellants and on the date of incident they came over there to take forcible possession of the same. Learned counsel further submitted that the theory of cross case put forward by the appellants is not true. The attack on the informant side was a deliberate act on the part of the appellants and the FIR was lodged by them was an after thought act of the appellants. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders dated 11.11.2024, 19.11.2024 and 31.1.2025. The death of the father of the informant has taken place in the said occurrence and they are not entitled for bail by way of allowing their criminal appeals.

10. 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.

11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, and the fact that the FIR was lodged by the appellants side prima facie reveals that the case in hand has a cross case as well and some persons from appellants side have also sustained injuries, the concealment of real facts regarding the very inception of the occurrence on the part of the prosecution, the pendency of civil dispute regarding the land in dispute between the parties and also that the death of the father of the informant was not caused intentionally and no specific evidence on record as to who was the author of the fatal injury caused to the deceased, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have 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.

12. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders rejecting the bail applications of the appellants are, hereby, set- aside.

13. Let the above named appellants involved in the aforesaid crime 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 appellants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellants will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellants 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 they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. (v) The appellants 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.

14. 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 :- 30.5.2025 Fhd FAHAD NIYAZ FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad