High Court · 2025

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Deependra Singh Chandel Alias Bauwa with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 13.9.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 136 of 2024 under Sections 302, 201, IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Sachendi, District Kanpur Nagar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record.

3. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 26.4.2024 while the mother of the informant was all alone in the house, brother of the informant came to the house at 2.30 p.m. and ranged the bell but the gate was not opened and anyhow he entered into the house and found her in bloodied and unconscious condition on the floor. She was taken to Kanhaiya Lal Hospital at Sachendi wherefrom she was referred to Hailet Hospital, Kanpur Nagar where she was under treatment. F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person under Section 307 IPC, however during course of treatment she died and the matter was converted under Sections 302, 201 IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. Appellant had absolutely no motive to commit the crime. The case of prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances is not complete in this matter and there is no clinching evidence against the present appellant. It is also submitted that it is a case of no evidence and only on the basis of suspicion the present appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. No one has seen the incident. It is also submitted that no incriminating article has been retrieved from the possession of the appellant. It is also submitted that the death of the deceased occurred after about 10 days of the incident but during this period no statement of the deceased when she was alive was recorded by the I.O. It is further submitted that the prosecution relies upon only a CCTV footage but it is not clear on the point that the person shown in the said footage is present appellant. It is further submitted that only on the basis of CDR it cannot be said that it was the appellant who was the author of the crime. However, he further admitted that the appellant was having some relations with the deceased lady with her consent, hence, there could be no motive for him to do away with the deceased. No statement of any person residing in the same vicinity was recorded by the I.O. It is also submitted that only on the basis of extra judicial confession of the appellant he has been implicated in this case. According to the said statement the appellant had visited the house of the deceased for the first time where in excitement he made an attempt to make physical relations with the deceased but when she denied, he inflicted fatal injuries by pushing her head on the floor because he had been already in physical relations with the victim. It is also submitted that the recovery of mobile of the deceased on his pointing out is false and concocted story of the police, which has not been corroborated by the statement of any independent witness. The Court concerned 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. Appellant is in jail since 29.4.2024. 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.

5. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to scheduled caste community. It is also submitted that the statement of the deceased when she was alive was not recorded by the I.O. due to the reason of being her into coma after receiving injury till her death. It is further submitted that in the post mortem report the doctor has found several injuries on her body which were fatal to her. It is also submitted that in the affidavit filed in support of this appeal the appellant has admitted the fact of being at the house of Anita, the deceased, but however, he deposed that within 20 minutes he had left the house of the deceased and he is totally unaware of the fact that happened after his leaving the house. It is further submitted that in the CCTV footage the accused is clearly visible, who was also identified by the neighborour of the deceased. The mobile phone of the deceased was recovered on the pointing out of the accused appellant and the CDR collected by the I.O. also reveals that he had often some chats with the deceased. It is further submitted that on the fateful day the accused was trying to make physical relations with the deceased forcefully and when she denied it caused annoyance to the appellant and then he made an assault upon her, serious injuries were caused to the deceased resulting into her death after few days. The offence is very grave and serious. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

6. 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.

7. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the Court concerned has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, admission of the appellant that he had been in the house of the deceased on the fateful day and other circumstances relating to the incident and also the impact of Section 6 of the Evidence Act which says that facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. The Court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Deependra Singh Chandel Alias Bauwa with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 13.9.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar and to release the appellant on bail in case crime no. 136 of 2024 under Sections 302, 201, IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Sachendi, District Kanpur Nagar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire record.

3. Prosecution story, as unfolded in the F.I.R., is that on 26.4.2024 while the mother of the informant was all alone in the house, brother of the informant came to the house at 2.30 p.m. and ranged the bell but the gate was not opened and anyhow he entered into the house and found her in bloodied and unconscious condition on the floor. She was taken to Kanhaiya Lal Hospital at Sachendi wherefrom she was referred to Hailet Hospital, Kanpur Nagar where she was under treatment. F.I.R. was lodged against unknown person under Section 307 IPC, however during course of treatment she died and the matter was converted under Sections 302, 201 IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. Appellant had absolutely no motive to commit the crime. The case of prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances is not complete in this matter and there is no clinching evidence against the present appellant. It is also submitted that it is a case of no evidence and only on the basis of suspicion the present appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. No one has seen the incident. It is also submitted that no incriminating article has been retrieved from the possession of the appellant. It is also submitted that the death of the deceased occurred after about 10 days of the incident but during this period no statement of the deceased when she was alive was recorded by the I.O. It is further submitted that the prosecution relies upon only a CCTV footage but it is not clear on the point that the person shown in the said footage is present appellant. It is further submitted that only on the basis of CDR it cannot be said that it was the appellant who was the author of the crime. However, he further admitted that the appellant was having some relations with the deceased lady with her consent, hence, there could be no motive for him to do away with the deceased. No statement of any person residing in the same vicinity was recorded by the I.O. It is also submitted that only on the basis of extra judicial confession of the appellant he has been implicated in this case. According to the said statement the appellant had visited the house of the deceased for the first time where in excitement he made an attempt to make physical relations with the deceased but when she denied, he inflicted fatal injuries by pushing her head on the floor because he had been already in physical relations with the victim. It is also submitted that the recovery of mobile of the deceased on his pointing out is false and concocted story of the police, which has not been corroborated by the statement of any independent witness. The Court concerned 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. Appellant is in jail since 29.4.2024. 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.

5. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to scheduled caste community. It is also submitted that the statement of the deceased when she was alive was not recorded by the I.O. due to the reason of being her into coma after receiving injury till her death. It is further submitted that in the post mortem report the doctor has found several injuries on her body which were fatal to her. It is also submitted that in the affidavit filed in support of this appeal the appellant has admitted the fact of being at the house of Anita, the deceased, but however, he deposed that within 20 minutes he had left the house of the deceased and he is totally unaware of the fact that happened after his leaving the house. It is further submitted that in the CCTV footage the accused is clearly visible, who was also identified by the neighborour of the deceased. The mobile phone of the deceased was recovered on the pointing out of the accused appellant and the CDR collected by the I.O. also reveals that he had often some chats with the deceased. It is further submitted that on the fateful day the accused was trying to make physical relations with the deceased forcefully and when she denied it caused annoyance to the appellant and then he made an assault upon her, serious injuries were caused to the deceased resulting into her death after few days. The offence is very grave and serious. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order.

6. 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.

7. It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from perusal of material on record that the Court concerned has properly considered the case of the appellant while deciding the bail application. Hence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, admission of the appellant that he had been in the house of the deceased on the fateful day and other circumstances relating to the incident and also the impact of Section 6 of the Evidence Act which says that facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has not made out a case for bail. The Court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad