High Court · 2025

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the entire record.

4. The F.I.R. under Sections 103, 238 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act was lodged by the informant Surajpal Jatav on 11.9.2024 at 13:16 hours alleging therein that on 5.9.2024 at about 6:00 P.M., accused Guru son of Rakesh Bhardwaj forcibly took away Pinku, aged about 15 years, the son of the informant and when in the evening at about 7:00 P.M. the informant went to the shop of accused Guru, the other accused Rakesh Bhardwaj told him to send Pinku after 15 minutes and then he also made a phone call to the informant that his son had already gone to his house. However, Pinku did not come back and on 6.9.2024 at about 10:15 A.M., the dead body of Pinku was found in a drainage and it appeared that accused Rakesh Bhardwaj and his sons, in criminal conspiracy with each other, caused death of Pinku by drowning him in the drainage water and the dead body was hidden in the drainage. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in this matter against the accused Rakesh Bhardwaj alias Lala, Neelkanth alias Guru and Neeraj Bhardwaj (present appellant) under Sections 103, 238, 3(5), 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act.

5. 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. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are missing in this matter. It is also submitted that the present case rests upon circumstantial evidence but the links of event are not complete to make a full chain of circumstances which is essential to get an accused guilty for an offence relating to circumstantial case. It is also submitted that a perusal of the postmortem report shows four antemortem injuries upon the person of the deceased and the doctor has opined that cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem drowning. It is also submitted that there is no incriminating evidence against the present appellant and he has been falsely roped in this case only on account of being the son of Rakesh Bhardwaj, the named accused, whereas the present appellant is not even named in the F.I.R. It is also submitted that the prosecution has obtained some tutored witnesses, who claimed to be the witnesses of the fact that they had seen the accused Rakesh Bhardwaj alias Lala and the present appellant carrying the dead body of the deceased in a gunny bag on a scooter in the intervening night of 5/6.9.2024 at about 3:30 to 4:00 A.M. It is also submitted that on this point there is material contradiction in the evidence of witnesses. It is also submitted that the appellant had no reason or motive to cause death of the juvenile son of the informant. The prosecution story is not probable on the point that the son of the informant was forcibly taken away from his house but no protest was made by the informant or his family members at that time. It is also submitted that if the prosecution story is taken as true, the deceased had been last seen alongwith the accused persons on 5.9.2024 at about 6:00 P.M. and thereafter his dead body was retrieved on 6.9.2024 at about 10:15 A.M. It is also submitted that the evidence of witnesses is not reliable, who allegedly saw the dead body of the deceased in a gunny bag taken by the accused persons in the wee hours at about 3:30 to 4:30 A.M., which was normally not a time for the witnesses to sit on the road side or at any shop. It is also submitted that only on the basis of confessional statement of the accused persons, which has no evidentiary value, the present appellant has been falsely roped in this case. The deceased was not taken away by the present appellant from his house. There is also no evidence on record to show that the deceased remained in the company of the accused persons or the present appellant since he was taken from his house till his death. It is also submitted that the so-called eyewitnesses of the case are inimical to the appellant. Is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Farrukhabad. It is further submitted that 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. 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. Appellant is languishing in jail since 25.9.2024 having no criminal antecedents to his credit and as such, he is entitled for bail by allowing the present appeal.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that from the perusal of the F.I.R. itself it denotes that accused Guru son of Rakesh Bhardwaj took away the 15 years old son of the informant from his house with him in the evening of 5.9.2024. Subsequently, in the same night, independent witnesses saw the accused Rakesh Bhardwaj sitting on a scooter, which was being driven by the present appellant and keeping a sack in between the two in the same late night and in the subsequent morning, the dead body of the informant's son was recovered from the drainage. It is also submitted that since the moment the deceased was taken away by co-accused Guru from his house, the deceased remained in the company of all the accused persons and it is clear from the statement of independent witnesses that the present appellant and his father were carrying the dead body in a sack on a scooter. It is true that there is no eyewitness of the incident of commitment of murder of the deceased but the circumstances which have been corroborated by the witnesses successfully demonstrate that the evidence of last seen was very well proved by the witnesses during investigation. It is also submitted that the deceased was a member of the weaker section of the Society and belonged to S.C./S.T. Community and a false allegation of theft was alleged against him by the accused persons and on a prior occasion, the accused persons had beaten him hurling caste related abuses and probably that was the motive behind the crime. The appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to marginal section of the Society. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The appellant is not entitled for any relaxation and his bail application is liable to be rejected and the appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed.

7. 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.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, medical evidence, the last seen evidence against the accused and his complicity in the present offence and also considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence and that it is a case of murder of a young boy of tender age of 15 years and there is no possibility of false implication of the appellant at this stage, the Court is of the view that the court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the present criminal appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 / ss SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and perused the entire record.

4. The F.I.R. under Sections 103, 238 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act was lodged by the informant Surajpal Jatav on 11.9.2024 at 13:16 hours alleging therein that on 5.9.2024 at about 6:00 P.M., accused Guru son of Rakesh Bhardwaj forcibly took away Pinku, aged about 15 years, the son of the informant and when in the evening at about 7:00 P.M. the informant went to the shop of accused Guru, the other accused Rakesh Bhardwaj told him to send Pinku after 15 minutes and then he also made a phone call to the informant that his son had already gone to his house. However, Pinku did not come back and on 6.9.2024 at about 10:15 A.M., the dead body of Pinku was found in a drainage and it appeared that accused Rakesh Bhardwaj and his sons, in criminal conspiracy with each other, caused death of Pinku by drowning him in the drainage water and the dead body was hidden in the drainage. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in this matter against the accused Rakesh Bhardwaj alias Lala, Neelkanth alias Guru and Neeraj Bhardwaj (present appellant) under Sections 103, 238, 3(5), 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (B.N.S.) and Section 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act.

5. 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. It is also submitted that the prosecution story is totally false and fabricated. Essential ingredients to constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act are missing in this matter. It is also submitted that the present case rests upon circumstantial evidence but the links of event are not complete to make a full chain of circumstances which is essential to get an accused guilty for an offence relating to circumstantial case. It is also submitted that a perusal of the postmortem report shows four antemortem injuries upon the person of the deceased and the doctor has opined that cause of death was asphyxia as a result of antemortem drowning. It is also submitted that there is no incriminating evidence against the present appellant and he has been falsely roped in this case only on account of being the son of Rakesh Bhardwaj, the named accused, whereas the present appellant is not even named in the F.I.R. It is also submitted that the prosecution has obtained some tutored witnesses, who claimed to be the witnesses of the fact that they had seen the accused Rakesh Bhardwaj alias Lala and the present appellant carrying the dead body of the deceased in a gunny bag on a scooter in the intervening night of 5/6.9.2024 at about 3:30 to 4:00 A.M. It is also submitted that on this point there is material contradiction in the evidence of witnesses. It is also submitted that the appellant had no reason or motive to cause death of the juvenile son of the informant. The prosecution story is not probable on the point that the son of the informant was forcibly taken away from his house but no protest was made by the informant or his family members at that time. It is also submitted that if the prosecution story is taken as true, the deceased had been last seen alongwith the accused persons on 5.9.2024 at about 6:00 P.M. and thereafter his dead body was retrieved on 6.9.2024 at about 10:15 A.M. It is also submitted that the evidence of witnesses is not reliable, who allegedly saw the dead body of the deceased in a gunny bag taken by the accused persons in the wee hours at about 3:30 to 4:30 A.M., which was normally not a time for the witnesses to sit on the road side or at any shop. It is also submitted that only on the basis of confessional statement of the accused persons, which has no evidentiary value, the present appellant has been falsely roped in this case. The deceased was not taken away by the present appellant from his house. There is also no evidence on record to show that the deceased remained in the company of the accused persons or the present appellant since he was taken from his house till his death. It is also submitted that the so-called eyewitnesses of the case are inimical to the appellant. Is further submitted that the bail application of the appellant has been rejected in an illegal manner by the Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Farrukhabad. It is further submitted that 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. 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. Appellant is languishing in jail since 25.9.2024 having no criminal antecedents to his credit and as such, he is entitled for bail by allowing the present appeal.

6. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that from the perusal of the F.I.R. itself it denotes that accused Guru son of Rakesh Bhardwaj took away the 15 years old son of the informant from his house with him in the evening of 5.9.2024. Subsequently, in the same night, independent witnesses saw the accused Rakesh Bhardwaj sitting on a scooter, which was being driven by the present appellant and keeping a sack in between the two in the same late night and in the subsequent morning, the dead body of the informant's son was recovered from the drainage. It is also submitted that since the moment the deceased was taken away by co-accused Guru from his house, the deceased remained in the company of all the accused persons and it is clear from the statement of independent witnesses that the present appellant and his father were carrying the dead body in a sack on a scooter. It is true that there is no eyewitness of the incident of commitment of murder of the deceased but the circumstances which have been corroborated by the witnesses successfully demonstrate that the evidence of last seen was very well proved by the witnesses during investigation. It is also submitted that the deceased was a member of the weaker section of the Society and belonged to S.C./S.T. Community and a false allegation of theft was alleged against him by the accused persons and on a prior occasion, the accused persons had beaten him hurling caste related abuses and probably that was the motive behind the crime. The appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the deceased belonged to marginal section of the Society. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The appellant is not entitled for any relaxation and his bail application is liable to be rejected and the appeal having no force is liable to be dismissed.

7. 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.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, medical evidence, the last seen evidence against the accused and his complicity in the present offence and also considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence and that it is a case of murder of a young boy of tender age of 15 years and there is no possibility of false implication of the appellant at this stage, the Court is of the view that the court concerned passed a reasoned order while rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and the same is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is affirmed and the present criminal appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 / ss SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad