High Court · 2025

Appellant :- Tasin Alias Shera Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- A.C.Srivastava,Subham Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Connected with Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12687 of 2024 Appellant :- Kalamuddin Alias Kalamu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Aditya Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, 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 appellants - Tasin Alias Shera & Kalamuddin Alias Kalamu with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 23.11.2024 & 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut in Bail Application Nos. 7229 of 2024 & 7071 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime Nos. 199 of 2024, under Sections 103 (1), 238 B.N.S. & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Kharkhauda, District Meerut.

3. The prosecution story as disclosed in the F.I.R. is that Raj Kumar, the deceased/husband of the informant Suman had gone to Mundali on 17.07.2024 at about 8:00 p.m. but he did not return home and a missing report was lodged on 20.07.2024 and while in search her Brother-in-law, Ramnivas and Monu found in the CCTV footage of wine shop of Mundali that Kalam S/o Kalwa and appelant S/o Pohammad were taking away the deceased by motorcycle sitting in the middle of both the accused. Subsequently, when the informant and her family members inquired into for the deceased, the aforesaid accused persons refused to tell anything. Subsequently on 04.08.2024 when they were interrogated by the police, they informed that they have already been killed the deceased and his skeleton was recovered from a jungle and he was identified by the informant but his family members through his clothings. A named F.I.R. against present applicants was lodged on 04.08.2024 and now charge sheet has been submitted in this matter.

4. 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. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no evidence at all against the applicants in the entire record of this case. It is further submitted that the I.O. has submitted that charge sheet against the applicants in an arbitrary manner without corroboration of any reliable evidence. It is next submitted that the missing of the deceased is said to be taken place on 17.04.2024 whereas the dead body has been recovered on 04.08.2024 in the form of a skeleton only. It is also submitted that some incriminating articles have been sent for DNA test as sample including femur, humerus and one tooth but the test report is still awaited which casts a doubt upon the prosecution case as to whether the post mortem of which was conducted by the doctor was of deceased Rajkumar or someone else. It is next submitted that besides a weak and shaky evidence, no other evidence has been attributed to the appellants. It is next submitted that there was no motive with the appellants to commit the crime and the prosecution was under obligation at least to prove some motive behind the crime. It is next submitted that since the death body of the deceased was recovered after about 16 days causing a big gap between the last scene together and death of the deceased, the last scene evidence is also of no credit. It is next submitted that no incriminating article has been retrieved by the police during investigation on the pointing out or from the possession of the present appellant. It is further submitted that only on the basis of a confessional statement of accused persons themselves, the police has falsely implicated them in this matter. It is next submitted that the appellant is having no criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 04.08.2024 whereas Kamal @ Kamalu is in jail since 05.08.2024 and they are entitled for bail by allowing the instant criminal appeals. 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. 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.

5. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellants committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders dated 23.11.2024 & 14.11.2024. It has been submitted that as per eye witnesses Bullu @ Veer who was interrogated by the I.O. during investigation has made a specific statement that on 17.04.2024 at 9:00 pm both the present appellants and deceased Rajkumar had visited a wine shop and the appellants had gone from motorcycle and the deceased was sitting in between both of them. It is further submitted that the said incident of last scene together was also recorded in the CCTV footage which has been made part of the record. It is also submitted that the DNA report is still awaited and femur, humerus and one tooth have been sent for lab test. It is further submitted that the death body of the deceased was identified by her wife through his clothings. It is next submitted that motorcycle which was used in the commission of crime belongs to the appellants Kalamuddin Alias Kalamu. It has been vehemently argued on the basis of evidence on record that the appellant does not deserve for bail by allowing the present criminal appeal.

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, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the facts that except the last scene evidence, no other incriminating evidence has been collected by the I.O., the recovery of death body after so many days, the alleged last scene evidence and no mentioning of the probable time of the death of the deceased, the clean criminal character of the appellant, incarceration period, absence of motive and other essential ingredients to establish the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence, no animosity between the appellants and the deceased without going into the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal. 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 appellants is, hereby, set-aside.

9. 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.

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 :- 9.4.2025 Shivangi SHIVANGI YADAV SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Appellant :- Tasin Alias Shera Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- A.C.Srivastava,Subham Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Connected with Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12687 of 2024 Appellant :- Kalamuddin Alias Kalamu Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Aditya Prasad Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, 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 appellants - Tasin Alias Shera & Kalamuddin Alias Kalamu with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 23.11.2024 & 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut in Bail Application Nos. 7229 of 2024 & 7071 of 2024, arising out of Case Crime Nos. 199 of 2024, under Sections 103 (1), 238 B.N.S. & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Kharkhauda, District Meerut.

3. The prosecution story as disclosed in the F.I.R. is that Raj Kumar, the deceased/husband of the informant Suman had gone to Mundali on 17.07.2024 at about 8:00 p.m. but he did not return home and a missing report was lodged on 20.07.2024 and while in search her Brother-in-law, Ramnivas and Monu found in the CCTV footage of wine shop of Mundali that Kalam S/o Kalwa and appelant S/o Pohammad were taking away the deceased by motorcycle sitting in the middle of both the accused. Subsequently, when the informant and her family members inquired into for the deceased, the aforesaid accused persons refused to tell anything. Subsequently on 04.08.2024 when they were interrogated by the police, they informed that they have already been killed the deceased and his skeleton was recovered from a jungle and he was identified by the informant but his family members through his clothings. A named F.I.R. against present applicants was lodged on 04.08.2024 and now charge sheet has been submitted in this matter.

4. 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. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is no evidence at all against the applicants in the entire record of this case. It is further submitted that the I.O. has submitted that charge sheet against the applicants in an arbitrary manner without corroboration of any reliable evidence. It is next submitted that the missing of the deceased is said to be taken place on 17.04.2024 whereas the dead body has been recovered on 04.08.2024 in the form of a skeleton only. It is also submitted that some incriminating articles have been sent for DNA test as sample including femur, humerus and one tooth but the test report is still awaited which casts a doubt upon the prosecution case as to whether the post mortem of which was conducted by the doctor was of deceased Rajkumar or someone else. It is next submitted that besides a weak and shaky evidence, no other evidence has been attributed to the appellants. It is next submitted that there was no motive with the appellants to commit the crime and the prosecution was under obligation at least to prove some motive behind the crime. It is next submitted that since the death body of the deceased was recovered after about 16 days causing a big gap between the last scene together and death of the deceased, the last scene evidence is also of no credit. It is next submitted that no incriminating article has been retrieved by the police during investigation on the pointing out or from the possession of the present appellant. It is further submitted that only on the basis of a confessional statement of accused persons themselves, the police has falsely implicated them in this matter. It is next submitted that the appellant is having no criminal history to his credit and he is languishing in jail since 04.08.2024 whereas Kamal @ Kamalu is in jail since 05.08.2024 and they are entitled for bail by allowing the instant criminal appeals. 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. 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.

5. On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellants committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders dated 23.11.2024 & 14.11.2024. It has been submitted that as per eye witnesses Bullu @ Veer who was interrogated by the I.O. during investigation has made a specific statement that on 17.04.2024 at 9:00 pm both the present appellants and deceased Rajkumar had visited a wine shop and the appellants had gone from motorcycle and the deceased was sitting in between both of them. It is further submitted that the said incident of last scene together was also recorded in the CCTV footage which has been made part of the record. It is also submitted that the DNA report is still awaited and femur, humerus and one tooth have been sent for lab test. It is further submitted that the death body of the deceased was identified by her wife through his clothings. It is next submitted that motorcycle which was used in the commission of crime belongs to the appellants Kalamuddin Alias Kalamu. It has been vehemently argued on the basis of evidence on record that the appellant does not deserve for bail by allowing the present criminal appeal.

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, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellants have made out a case for bail. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the facts that except the last scene evidence, no other incriminating evidence has been collected by the I.O., the recovery of death body after so many days, the alleged last scene evidence and no mentioning of the probable time of the death of the deceased, the clean criminal character of the appellant, incarceration period, absence of motive and other essential ingredients to establish the prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence, no animosity between the appellants and the deceased without going into the merits of the case, I am inclined to allow this appeal. 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 appellants is, hereby, set-aside.

9. 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.

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 :- 9.4.2025 Shivangi SHIVANGI YADAV SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad