High Court · 2025

Appellant :- Bobby Gurjar Alias Suraj Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Pandey,Sr. Advocate,Yagya Datt Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Brijesh Kumar Srivastava,G.A. 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 - Bobby Gurjar alias Suraj Singh with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the Incharge Addl. Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Agra and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.116 of 2024 under Section 105/3 (5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (B.N.S.) and 3 (2) 5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bah, District Agra.

2. 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.

3. FIR of this case was lodged on 10.07.2024 against the present accused appellant and three others and according to FIR, on 09.07.2024 at about 6:30 p.m. when the son of the informant aged about 18 years was going along with his cousin then on the way, appellant and other accused persons made an assault upon him through wooden stick, hockey and iron rod and due to assault made by the accused persons, his son sustained injuries and when he was being taken to the hospital, he died on the way. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter.

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. 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 not established in this matter. F.I.R. of this case was lodged belatedly after one day of the occurrence after due consultation and is an afterthought. It is also submitted that a general role has been assigned to the present appellant. It is alleged that he was preventing the family members of the deceased when they were coming to rescue the deceased. No allegation of assault has been made against the present appellant. The role of actual assault upon the head of the deceased was assigned to the main accused Ramu, who has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.1.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.241 of 2025. The role of the appellant is distinguishable from that of main accused Ramu and his case stands on better footing. It is also submitted that the appellant had absolutely no motive to commit the crime. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered on the pointing out or from the possession of the appellant. It 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), Agra. 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 13.10.2024. He is having criminal history of one case, which has been explained and as such, he is entitled to be released on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the appeal, but however they could not dispute the factual aspect of the matter argued by the counsel for the appellant.

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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, parity, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

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

9. Let the appellant Bobby Gurjar alias Suraj Singh involved in case crime no.116 of 2024 under Section 105/3 (5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (B.N.S.) and 3 (2) 5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bah, District Agra, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two 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 :- 24.3.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Appellant :- Bobby Gurjar Alias Suraj Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Kumar Pandey,Sr. Advocate,Yagya Datt Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Brijesh Kumar Srivastava,G.A. 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 - Bobby Gurjar alias Suraj Singh with the prayer to allow the appeal, set aside the bail rejection order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the Incharge Addl. Sessions Judge / Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Agra and release the appellant on bail in case crime no.116 of 2024 under Section 105/3 (5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (B.N.S.) and 3 (2) 5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bah, District Agra.

2. 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.

3. FIR of this case was lodged on 10.07.2024 against the present accused appellant and three others and according to FIR, on 09.07.2024 at about 6:30 p.m. when the son of the informant aged about 18 years was going along with his cousin then on the way, appellant and other accused persons made an assault upon him through wooden stick, hockey and iron rod and due to assault made by the accused persons, his son sustained injuries and when he was being taken to the hospital, he died on the way. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation charge-sheet has been submitted in the matter.

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. 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 not established in this matter. F.I.R. of this case was lodged belatedly after one day of the occurrence after due consultation and is an afterthought. It is also submitted that a general role has been assigned to the present appellant. It is alleged that he was preventing the family members of the deceased when they were coming to rescue the deceased. No allegation of assault has been made against the present appellant. The role of actual assault upon the head of the deceased was assigned to the main accused Ramu, who has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.1.2025 passed in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.241 of 2025. The role of the appellant is distinguishable from that of main accused Ramu and his case stands on better footing. It is also submitted that the appellant had absolutely no motive to commit the crime. It is further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered on the pointing out or from the possession of the appellant. It 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), Agra. 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 13.10.2024. He is having criminal history of one case, which has been explained and as such, he is entitled to be released on bail.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposed the appeal, but however they could not dispute the factual aspect of the matter argued by the counsel for the appellant.

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. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, parity, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

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

9. Let the appellant Bobby Gurjar alias Suraj Singh involved in case crime no.116 of 2024 under Section 105/3 (5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (B.N.S.) and 3 (2) 5 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Bah, District Agra, be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two 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 :- 24.3.2025 SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad