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 material available on record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Jhabbu Alias Vimal Yadav with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 20.04.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar in Bail Application No. 1178 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 822 of 2021 under Sections 302, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V), 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha SC/ST Act, Police Station - Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.

3. Deceased Jitendra, the husband of the informant, Susheela, when refused to give money to the present accused appellant for purchase of liquor, the appellant made knife blow in the abdomen of the deceased who sustained serious injuries and was admitted in the hospital but during investigation, Jitendra died and the matter was converted under Sections 302, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(2) (V), 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha 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. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that the present appellant has absolutely no concern with this matter. It is next submitted that Injured Jitendra who sustained injuries in the alleged incident was admitted in the hospital and went to his house on 11.09.2021. After being discharged from the hospital, he used to visit the hospital for treatment on 22.10.2021. He died of his injuries. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness of the incident and as a matter of fact, no murder weapon has been retrieved on the pointing out of the appellant. It is next submitted that the appellant was a habitual drinker. He was fully recovered from the hospital and when he came back from the hospital, he started drinking which caused infection and septicemia in his abdomen, resulting into his death. The applicant had absolutely no motive to commit the crime. 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. Appellant is in jail since 04.09.2021. 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 opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 20.04.2024. It is further submitted that since the deceased has sustained serious injury in the incident, no F.I.R. could be lodged promptly and the family member of the deceased were busy in his treatment. It is further submitted that no recovery of any alleged murder weapon has been made on the pointing out of the appellant. It is further submitted that the doctor has found a several injuries on the body of the deceased.

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 that the death of the deceased was not caused when he was admitted in the hospital rather he died of septicemia when he was living in his house after being discharged from the hospital on 22.10.2021 after about 1 & ½ month of the incident, the complicity of the accused appellant, the fact that the incident happened in the sudden quarrel as revealed from the evidence on record.

7. 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, 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.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside.

9. Let the above named appellant 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 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 appellant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

10. 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 :- 1.4.2025 Shivangi SHIVANGI YADAV SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 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 material available on record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Jhabbu Alias Vimal Yadav with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 20.04.2024 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar in Bail Application No. 1178 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 822 of 2021 under Sections 302, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(2)(V), 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha SC/ST Act, Police Station - Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.

3. Deceased Jitendra, the husband of the informant, Susheela, when refused to give money to the present accused appellant for purchase of liquor, the appellant made knife blow in the abdomen of the deceased who sustained serious injuries and was admitted in the hospital but during investigation, Jitendra died and the matter was converted under Sections 302, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3(2) (V), 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha 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. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case. It is further submitted that the present appellant has absolutely no concern with this matter. It is next submitted that Injured Jitendra who sustained injuries in the alleged incident was admitted in the hospital and went to his house on 11.09.2021. After being discharged from the hospital, he used to visit the hospital for treatment on 22.10.2021. He died of his injuries. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness of the incident and as a matter of fact, no murder weapon has been retrieved on the pointing out of the appellant. It is next submitted that the appellant was a habitual drinker. He was fully recovered from the hospital and when he came back from the hospital, he started drinking which caused infection and septicemia in his abdomen, resulting into his death. The applicant had absolutely no motive to commit the crime. 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. Appellant is in jail since 04.09.2021. 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 opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 20.04.2024. It is further submitted that since the deceased has sustained serious injury in the incident, no F.I.R. could be lodged promptly and the family member of the deceased were busy in his treatment. It is further submitted that no recovery of any alleged murder weapon has been made on the pointing out of the appellant. It is further submitted that the doctor has found a several injuries on the body of the deceased.

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 that the death of the deceased was not caused when he was admitted in the hospital rather he died of septicemia when he was living in his house after being discharged from the hospital on 22.10.2021 after about 1 & ½ month of the incident, the complicity of the accused appellant, the fact that the incident happened in the sudden quarrel as revealed from the evidence on record.

7. 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, 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.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside.

9. Let the above named appellant 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 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 appellant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

10. 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 :- 1.4.2025 Shivangi SHIVANGI YADAV SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad